8:27 pm EST

"WHY READ THE BIBLE? (A SECULAR ARGUMENT)"

Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.

Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it?

(Isaiah 43:18-19)

It's a challenge to answer the question of this essay's title. Who is asking it? Perhaps I should assume that every literate on the planet already wants to read The Bible; and all out of intellectual curiosity, purely, at that. Hm. Good. Negating any idea of purpose is a good place to start. (Purpose... hm.)

Reverse psychology, you rebel? What's the case for shunning the text? and more precisely, on a parallel rationale of intellect? Well, ask yourself: Can a text MAKE you ignorant? I suppose it can! But you MUST carry the qualifications -- hell, even the infantile "credentials" let's say -- to be susceptible to that infection. The most important one is commitment. Let's say, the ignoramus is "mathematically committed" as a tautological matter respecting The Bible. This person would become very easy to discourage from further pursuit of the text -- quickly and easily! -- provided one is frank. It's simple stuff. A man who reads it that linearly, that incapaciously, that microscopically? There is a WORD, a PERFECT word, S&B fans, for the resulting intellectual output (maybe of a moral quality!) of having read any book in that fashion: it's called "psittacosis" -- something highly familiar to 2013 America, by the way.

The sufferer of psittacosis -- and I'm speculating -- achieves the disease this way: 1) He thinks I want to know "the truth". 2) Perhaps after a search or encouragement, he sets his sights on The Bible. 3) He finds this beautifully bound thing "perfect" (likely in part as a result of bias, but no matter). Key: he asks himself NOT "Perfect, perfect as such WHAT?" He asks not. This eludes him, but I suspect his ego willed himself to voluntarily be dodged so that he could blast off into the hyperspace of self-perceived "correctness". This was the moment of infection, somehow. 4) The ability to distinguish between truth, accuracy, and correctness -- has been lost or forfeited; they have become merged, like what is left in an unflushed toilet after three separate, consecutive excretions of diarrhea by three phantoms into one bowl. The parrot, who was trying to become human, consumes the mixture; it's unsanitary, but his body takes it as his deity begins to both hate and pity him. 5) The Bible ceases to be a book to him. It is now a screenplay, and he is a handsome movie-star. And he WILL not forget his lines! 6) Time passes. He gets into character, and hones his understanding of his fictional role. He wants an Oscar. He stays in character on and off the set, and in his dreams he stays, too, as best he can. 7) Stanley Kubrick dies, the producers abort, and the actor gets a therapist. End of story.

IS The Holy Bible perfect? Yes! It is! And why is that? Answer: Because it's FOR YOU, and it's FOR GOD! Yes! You have some input! God RECEIVES YOU when you read it -- even if God is only a concept and nothing more. GOD DOES NOT EXIST... IF YOU DO NOT EXIST.

It's not a punctuated step process. The application of human potential does not occur only after reading Scripture. The reading is not an act of submission, and if you approach it that way, then you are guilty of GREED. You are taking, taking, taking from God; disingenuously paying him smarmy lip-service with "amens" you feel not in your soul. Your Maker, or the Author, wants to hear your thoughts, your wonder, your surprise, your joy, your disgust, and yes, your JUDGMENT as you read! You OWE Him that! It's not a toy you get in your stocking, this text, but a journey through Time with your Father. You are expected to participate in the conversation, and demand of Him the clarification of His wisdom that in reality you receive through education in the humanities and indeed the pure sciences, and also by perceiving Nature with as little self-deceit as you may and as much attention to detail. And infer. And deduce with humility. Then take the experience with you.

Is this still a secular argument? I would say so. I would say I have given you a reason to at least read SOMETHING. But the Author of what is -- and it is what it is; and it is merely what it is; and it is more than what it is -- HEARS YOU and watches your pupils dilate and contract as you read, and it MATTERS to Him. Your intelligence is His brain. Don't forfeit it and give Him dementia.

I am god. Publish a comment.

2:08 am EST

"WORDS OR DRUGS?"

If we could suppose ONE reason above all else as to why humans resort to hallucinogenic drugs as a means of improving quality of life, what would that single reason be? I will propose a theory.

But first: Why am I singling out hallucinogens? Because: Drugs we call hallucinogens are the essence of the drug controversy, I think. They are the drugs associated with the greatest diversity of rationales to use; the justifications to use overlap with so many other sorts of psychotropics and run the gamut of "getting fucked up" to "chilling out" to "seeing God". By definition, all psychotropics, street or prescription or both, have something to do with consciousness and/or perception. For the sake of this essay's discussion I'm supposing that the "corporeal" desired effects are a secondary motive for the user. More bluntly, if you're mainly just trying to alleviate pain -- not explore pain -- well, then... that's pretty close to the nonlegal definition of "narcotic". A person may use a hallucinogen with no conscious intention whatever of narcotizing himself; and he may receive a narcotic effect supplementarily; and as time goes on, narcosis may become the primary motive (conscious or unconscious) for continued use, and the justification of altering the mind may become a cop-out or delusion. But ultimately, the pondering observer of the drug user (whether another man or himself) must accept the STATED rationale for the use in question if he is to dissect, appraise and discuss the philosophy of the behavior. That is, Take the user at his word and argue your case at its center according to his present claim. I would especially hope that parents and counselors heed this advice; on this count my parable might be: You're not going to take away your mushroom-eating teen's driving privileges only and correct his undesirable behavior successfully by forcing anything more than a short-term cost-benefit analysis on his part and hopefully some appreciation of the merits of "days clean" -- merits uncertain and debatable, by the way. If that were all, then what did you, parent, do to satisfy your child's original appetite for the drug with a sustainable alternative? Nothing. If his rationale or justification is a cop-out, then fine; so it's a cop-out -- but if that's what it is, then ought that not make it easier to argue against?

My apologies to Nietzsche, but I simply am still very far from the view that weakness and dullness are personally sought after by Americans. I don't buy it. I think normal people -- and drug users are normal people -- want to be strong and witty; able, intelligent, keen. Even in the pursuit stated as "getting fucked up", I maintain my case; for the spirit of the slang is fairly ironic. The truth is, drugs are done out of a desire to empower, embolden or enlighten oneself. "Relaxation" in this context (quite a popular rationale) would be better understood as "distraction" or "the aversion of one's focus away from a source of restlessness or inner strife and back towards what one has that is more amenable and for which one should be thankful". Put it this way: we conflate meditation with enlightenment for a good reason.

So; recapitulating... the ONE reason. The theory. I got ahead of myself with "empower, embolden, enlighten". And that's not a problem -- because these are all in the same respect, and that "what?" is ACCESS. And precisely, that is ACCESS to what words and images and music cannot give you. (Eject "medicine" from your mind at this point.) And that reason, that motive, is regrettable. Sure, music and the visual arts do historically have high turnover rates of edifyingness, and perhaps that's healthy, natural and appropriate for humanity and the humanities in many ways (arguable but tangential).

But the Holy Bible; the Ramayana; the Sermons of Buddha; the Upanishads; the Rig Veda; the Koran; the Tao Te Ching? These are not mp3's or BlueRay's. These are words; venerated by those attempting to live full and balanced lives, or at least acknowledged as heritage if unpracticed or not strictly applied. Moreover, these classics (and we could go on -- Beowulf; the Iliad?) helped themselves to CREATE the tongues of Earth! For example, Martin Luther is largely responsible for the lexicon of modern German. Furthermore, our interactions with our relations rest far and away more on the use of vocabulary than on the exchange of images and music (-- is that changing?). But language is becoming misunderstood, probably for not-at-all new reasons. We humans must work on our approach to ours. We must yoke it, yet then we must liberate it. We must master it, yet then we must submit to it. We must be skeptical of it, but we must trust it then. We must cut our lips upon its razor's edge, yet tickle ourselves with it as a feather. Mangle it, and caress it gently.

As I've stated before, tongues ought be "vigorous, dynamic and free spritually". [cf. Smoke and Bounce; Monday, March 4, 2013; 5:30 pm EST; "SURRENDERING TO BINARY CODE"] Words you'll find in an instruction manual on how to fix your dishwasher are NOT, I think, very good words to apply toward improving your relationship with your deity or your friends or your family. In fact, though hyperbole, what's the world coming to? if I have to assert that with a straight face?! And yet the spirit of the delusion so implied rings true. We've heard of the cliche "to say all the right things". That is a fool's errand, a perversion of communication, and an irresponsibility that can beget only lies and trivia. Conversation is not one big "sales-pitch" to get someone's affection. Words and ideas used for intended effect are essentially... prostituted. Persuasion is one thing, but if it is legitimate with respect to the human spirit, then a persuasive attempt can be expressed very much both variably and spontaneously.

But what have we got in America? We have linguistic utilitarianism run rampant; a fetishistic officialism of words; a ceremoniousness of "I'm right, you're wrong"; a canon of philosophical blasphemies and conversation-killers: "asshat" and "fucktard", or "liberal" and "conservative". Not only are we not learning what we ARE; I wonder if we're even learning what we ARE NOT. And in our despondence concerning this learning prospect, we are becoming lazy -- we don't have the means or inclination to make sense of a meme, so we click "like" or "dislike" for the frigid electron-mob to figure its value, and end it there and move on.

So now we've a parallel to discern: what do powerful, stirring words and hallucinogens have in common? Answer: They both CONFUSE us. They prompt questions and uncertainties. They prompt feelings of empathy, reverence, guilt -- to name a few.

So why is it, then, that habitual word-use produces skills in human relations profoundly better -- even if only over time -- than habitual drug-use? Answer: Because language is cumulatively complexifiable. Drug trips are not; they merely pass as memories of events, however memorable; and if their descriptions cannot be shared with others as non-rival goods, then even poets cannot develop them into real cogitation -- therefore, what good are drug trips? (Yes, I know Lady Gaga writes songs on weed. Still.)

11:14 am EST

"MARRIAGE of REINCARNATION to CHRISTIAN FINAL JUDGMENT"

(Disclaimer: The essay below fails to pull off the impossible (?) mission suggested by the title -- no surprise there, huh? But it still has some good stuff, so read on...)

I begin with a bias; to you S&B fans and dilettantes alike. The bias is the FEELING -- God! -- the feeling I got from The Star Rover, by Jack London (... the "Great", I say; what a man that writer was!). London's 1915 novel was originally titled The Jacket. Take your pick, gents and ladies; either works. London tells us not of the Klondike (as we popularly expect) but of a man -- reliving his past lives -- in a catatonic state -- in a straight/torture-jacket -- in a dungeon of solitary confinement, with rare morse-code knuckle-tapping communication with fellow sufferers -- awaiting the consummation of a death sentence by means of hanging. And that is the absolute simplest way I can put it. Folks: READ IT. And thank me or do not. I care not. (The one and only "pitch" or "trailer" I give to you in this adulatory is that: These are SWASHBUCKLING past lives of which he tells, in glorious chapters, of the most prime and exquisite sort you've ever dreamed.) Yes, I am biased; I believe in the spiritual transmigration of the soul mainly on account of having read this majestic fiction. But dear readers: consider the truth that the most intimate depths of human psychology are generally contained in novels -- is this "news" to you? Well... there are autobiographies, true, but just earnestly examine the population in your brain of the literature that has touched you most deeply -- you who are mainstream would name The Holy Scriptures and/or great novels. And that is a parsimonious supposition, I think. So therefore bear with me, all, for I am an academic but not born yesterday. I KNOW you believe in your heroes: Jesus of Nazareth, Darrell Standing -- or BOTH.

And now, meat: I have initiated this piece with a declaration of so-called "belief" (what is belief?) popularly attributed to "Eastern" -- i.e., Indian/Hindu unto Buddhist reforms -- religion and philosophy; again, reincarnation, or spiritual transmigration of the self or soul, as I would put it. Damn! I want to move on now! But while I've captured your attention toward this extended synonym of "reincarnation", I dare to delay as an indulgent hack. -- My OWN particularity here? You guessed it; this author has one. And it is: A single lifetime -- yours, mine, your lab-rat's, whatever -- is or can be intra-transmigrational spiritually; "intra-" suggesting that upwards of countless many alternate identities may be assumed, living brain aware or unaware, within a "one" life experience. As my father has put it: "A day a life; a life a day." You interpret. And more explicitly I'd crankily rant that the onus is on YOU, sir, to prove that you are not existing in alternate whole dimensions from one day or instant or phase of arrested adolescence to the next. Now, the delay -- the aside -- is OVER. Issue discussed, I say, and issue largely independent of related issues.

SO: I initiated with "Eastern bias". Let's talk West. Perhaps the title of this piece is deceptive! I will get to the point! I suspect -- suspect, in my relative ignorance of voluminous catholic theology -- that it is NOT that Genesis marks a beginning of Time and that the Last Judgment marks the end of Time, OR that the Hebrew race evolved in their relation to Yahweh over Time, OR that the Roman Empire existed (as an enabler of the spread of culture) as a historical phenomenon, OR EVEN -- and perhaps even ESPECIALLY (!) -- that the Church or "Christendom" developed as a part of The Almighty's plan oriented towards the "future"; BUT that Jesus' existence designates -- and what do I mean? -- the Christian's firmest grip on the concept of Time itself, SIMPLY because any bit of the Son's story may be seen as a focal point of the "temporal sciences" (if there is such a thing; and I'll get to that). The Christian must examine: Christ was a living player on the great chess board of the universe, on whatever square, at whatever point in the game -- but what do I make of Time, no matter how nobly or loftily or even introspectively I examine my Savior? And IS He my "savior"? for if the Lord preexisted the very creation of the heaven and the earth, clearly indicated in Genesis 1:1, and mine relationship with Jesus not one of equanimity but STILL yet "grace", clearly indicated in Revelation 22:21... well, then... my goodness: I am left blinded by the cross alone, or perhaps more mercifully by the star over Bethlehem. I am BLINDED. And confused.

I know, you Christian, your knee-jerk challenge to me or question: the Resurrection's significance pertinent to the temporal sciences. I assure you, dear one, I shall address that below.

But let's backpedal a tad and jump as high in the air as we may to examine Time -- and HONESTLY. The concept of Time, first and foremost, is absolutely an integral and indispensable part of how we make our identities intelligible to one another. This is a plain fact. I have a story, you have a story, Jesus has a story, and we tell each other our stories in even the most tacit or casual talk or writing, all the damn time-long-day. Time being a "flow", or whatever under the heavens it may truly be, is supremely important in our relations -- or IS IT, NOW?! (And I shall rise to that! if only rudimentarily.) Occidentals: I am blogging in English. I will say that much. Now CONCEIVE Time! You cannot! No how, no way. There is no universally satisfying definition of Time, there is no universal metaphor for Time, and whatever cave or foggy marsh you've been living in: there is no universally agreed-upon SYMBOL of Time. In fact, if there were a symbol for Time, there would be logically a synonym for Time. You have NONE, dude. Get over it -- and you're not alone. Yet praise yourself! You speak about Time, and of Time, so deftly! and effortlessly! You apply the concept in a limitless variety of ways. And it begs no doubt at all of you. It's not a problem! It's not the game of chess; it is the board! 64 squares or dimensions or trajectories or jokes or what-have-you. Or infinite, or none at all. No problem, sir. Yet remember: you are both its master and its slave -- and this duality is inescapable. Ha! "... to Time indefinite!" Ha!

And now let's get over the ENGLISH! For it's not your religion or race or routine, Occidental boy; not at all -- but your TALK! (Let's call it "talk" over "language", because it is quite so -- trust me -- that this is a case of everday street-TALK-shit DIFFERENCES, profoundly real versus India; very, very independent of the overstocked personal libraries-gathering-dust of the ivory-tower Indian intellectual sending his passenger pigeons to the ascetic Christian monk in the Alps. This street shit likely goes straight to the tongues of the homeless heroes in the ghettos of Mumbai, or to the dinner table of an Indian subsistence-farmer and his family, for that matter. Got it? Good.) I'll bet wads of cash you'll never take the trouble, but supposing you did learn Sanskrit, you'll likely notice first the startling non-use of finite verbs. As a general rule, Indians simply do not use them. Rather, in Sanskrit, the verb appears mainly as a verbal noun. Again, street-chat, NOT philosophy; common sense (!) to Indians, NOT Einsteinian calculus. So if you take my word for all this: what does that indicate to you, Occidental? (Booster-example for you: A Westerner states "You will go." The Indian states something qualitatively different that is yet the closest translation: "You are the one who goes.") The Indian does not concern himself with, but rather largely ignores Time, and if he regards Time at all he apprehends it as an illusion. And again, sir, I will reemphasize: this is not an esoteric idea in "The East". Not at all -- but TAKEN FOR GRANTED; COMMON SENSE.

This accounts, I say, for an intuitively noticeable difference in the Westerner's capacity to practice meditation techniques versus the Easterner's. Everybody knows it; when a white man "meditates", he's typically just praying to God for God's hand in helping him advance his DEEDS, or thanking God for making his DEEDS possible to DO, or begging God's forgiveness for MISDEEDS. Typically the white man does not truly meditate in the classical sense at all. You know it! His frustration in trying to "stay in the present moment", or "just be", or whatever-the-fuck-ever he thinks he's trying to do? Man! It is world-renowned! Typically the white lacks the basic capacity to perform true meditation. And in this author's opinion, he ought to stop trying. Seriously. The racial element of his incapacity may be negligible or not, but ultimately he is incapacitated by his very own native, Occidental language. His everyday TALK. He talks action, action, action; past, present, future. Give it up, typical white man. You cannot pull it off, and so when the police take you to the psych ward, I suggest that you elevate your status there not through breathing exercises but rather by wiping swastikas on the walls with your feces. Take it or leave it. And just take the goddamn meds. Get your shit together and get out. No one there will penalize you for dicking around, but don't tell me that you weren't with that ooga-booga mumbo-jumbo crap. Do not try me; I will not have you.

The typical Indian, benefited by his linguistic heritage, has little trouble sitting down on his practiced and firm ass and dis-concerning himself from action, which occurs upon a time-continuum. He concerns himself with... himself! He more easily and readily apprehends himself as true, essential, universal, stable, and STATIC, rather than dynamic -- independent from the distracting illusion of Time; he knows he is an agent or actor of intention, true, but he draws the line at calling his true self a history of deeds. Furthermore, when the Indian typical is done "chilling", and he returns to his friends and relations, they understand his deeds future and past and between more in the sense of context, by far, than by temporal qualification; and this author's guess is that this involves the exercise of a hazily unique form of logic chiefly unfamiliar to the Occidental communities.

The Resurrection, you Christian waiting patiently? Sir: who am I to make a serious attempt to discuss, in all my immaturity, the epicenter of your very personal faith? Shall I, really? Shall I? Well, the echoes of the mass in my head breathe "the life of the world to come". It is none of our places to know this, dear Christians. We can't imagine it in more than a flicker, whether by hallucination or the majestic symbolism we discern in photographs from a cutting-edge space telescope. It's not possible. Stick to love, or charity, or whatever you want to call it. Do you really think my dear domesticated feline Sully gives a shit about the slicing and dicing I have just laid down? Do not say "yes"; it is not time for jest here. Your hope is YOUR hope, and I pray it will be fulfilled.

Moving along. You are not stupid. You grasp ETHICS. The idea of one life, and one life only, with one historical and/or socio-political context, REPEATED, infinitely! or even ONCE repeated, God forbid! TERRIFIES me. It's tantamount to an exquisite idea of Hell and damnation. But ha! I am not afraid. Neither ineffable Karma nor The Almighty's judgment would produce that, and for a very simple reason: it would be meaningless; utterly non-progressive. Supposing to an Occidental: if it were damnation, damnation would have nothing at all to do with justice. Justice is an answer, and as an idea it is predicated on ethics; and ethics is meaningful before all other meaningful things. Both the context of freedom and the answer will always be new and unique.

THE ALTERNATIVE: How many manifestations of the Lord Christ are there? How many living forms of Him? Christ is interplanetary; intersolar; intergalactic; interuniversal; and more pertinently to us, I believe: Christ is interecosystematic. We got a sample. We got a sample in pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. And if your blood is red, reader, you got blood. And wonders beyond. But a SAMPLE, reader! Deep down, reader, I believe that you MAY witness the Christ's struggle again -- and PERSONALLY witness! you yourself, Christian! You may witness Christ in some phase of His at the bottom of an ocean of mercury on a far, far off planet that's never heard high or nigh of DNA, or you Christian may witness Him in the depths of a black hole in the crux of a parallel universe. You may witness Him deep in ice. You may witness Him in a jungle canopy. You may witness Him on a camel in a sandstorm. Christian: some things will always remain the same: He will SPEAK. He will FREE. And He will LOVE YOU.

4:00 am EST

"FALLACY OF NATURALIST ETHICS"

if an ethical code is based upon rationality, then it requires a set of individual life forms to whom it applies. hence, there is a set of individuals to whom it does NOT apply. hence, a "rational" ethical code depends upon a group agreement of their own specific taxon's criteria of identity. BUT: the law of evolution DICTATES that taxons split and form 2 or more new taxons; i.e., families, species, races, varieties, etc. therefore, rational ethical codes can only be rational upon a temporary basis before they must be reinvented and revitalized. hence, no rational ethical code is eternal. hence, a sacred ethical code -- if we are to define sacredness as necessarily implying timelessness -- cannot be subject to empirical or naturalist scrutiny. if it were, it would look profoundly IRRATIONAL no matter HOW attractive.

disprove me!

(ok, some chick claimed my premise was "unproven". but it is proven. WHY? here's why: a "rational" idea requires the exercise of "rationality". hence, there must be 1 or more individuals to perform it, if we are to assume that rationality involves a biological process of any sort, e.g., a nervous system's. furthermore, anything "ethical" cannot be exercised without the "other" to whom one must treat ethically. lastly for now, i can't help but point out that it is common in philosophy to not haggle over a premise itself, but rather the argument that follows the premise. since when was this otherwise?)

12:47 am EST

"AN HISTORIAN'S PRAYER"

If we are worms, give us ears to hear your thunder, Lord. If we are angels, quicken our blood to prepare one another for purification. May I seek to never know your terrible knowledge, the naked evils sobriety alone could not bear. In your mercy, through the Holy Spirit and the majestic radiance of your Son, make me keen of my innocence. Bring the prison of my selfishness to ruins. Seal my every delusion in an incinerator. Burn my hate away; my pride is thick dust in the crypt of my shadow -- in a hurricane I will forgive the dead you name. May my every reason, every intuition, every conclusion, and every verse in even the oldest Scriptures themselves, be subject to the edit of your hand, Lord. For who knows if a page of a book is but a flicker or dimension in your wisdom? just a sand painting upon a rock, from which a dove might fly away and never return?

6:50 am EST

"CHRISTIAN SEA CUCUMBERS"

"And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." (Revelation 5:13)

What are we to make of this? What are we to deduce?

Even after my declaration of my Cincinnatian Catholicism in my letter to M___, this is just TOO GOOD! Less than a week ago I'm making an argument for spiritual egalitarianism I can't avoid; knowing deep and fully there's no such thing as an indivisible taxon -- and now tonight by providence I chance a verse with what appears to me to hold the same argument with no mention of taxonomy at all! Really? A horseshoe crab? An eel? A starfish? Confessing in unison the glory of the Lamb in language Saint John the Divine can hear and understand? In my catholic declaration I provided the examples of a leopard and an orang-utan, and the beaver as an architect; and added a gila monster in a follow-up comment. Those were the examples I used to argue for equal culture and character. But "all that are in the sea"? Speaking? We are talking here about constituents on the tree of life that are supremely primitive -- do you understand that? As asserted in the declaration: a single grain of sand with a soul; yes, indeed, certainly!

Revelation 5:13 makes probably countless other verses in the New Testament redundant if we are to deduce from it with faith and sincerity. Mark 5:30 is one example: "Who touched my clothes?" would indicate Jesus' virtue to be extracorporeal, and his force and love besides. Could any member of "Homo sapiens" evangelize a brainless, legless sea cucumber? I imagine John the Divine would say no, but that Jesus can, and always did, and always will. Ha! Is there really a "modern generation" of sea cucumbers? I've never researched how they reproduce, but regardless of my ignorance concerning that matter, I roughly appraise their entire natural history to be one continuous intenstine; the cucumber of 2013 is the same ghost of his forefathers incarnate. Thus, Jesus' self-description "I am the Alpha and Omega" (Revelation 1:11) finds itself recapitulated in 5:13 -- Christ's force is extracorporeal and extratemporal.

Frankly I am tempted to wonder if God's Son was ever born at all or ever died at all. If even a twinkle in God's eye when God said "Let there be light," (Genesis 1:3) Jesus was still there nevertheless.

What other "extras" are there in the Son's nature? Is he extrahistorical? The written history of the Jesus cult and the Church of Rome matter a great deal to scholars and evangelists, but is this vanity? Does empiricist scrutiny by either believers such as historian Paul Johnson or nonbelievers really have any bearing on faith -- or is this approach like some awkward adolescent phase? If "actuality" matters to a religious moderate in this universe, does that mean he's waiting to be reborn in a universe with a distinctly different set of physics laws? As in: "No, the conquest of Jericho in this universe would have, and did, absolutely require a battering ram or something to do the job, but if I jumped through a black hole and emerged on the other side, I could have blown the walls over with a feather and God's help." (cf. Joshua 6:20)

I still believe that Jesus self-actualized gradually. (cf. "Christ and Historicity", Smoke and Bounce, 8:28 am EST, Thursday, February 21, 2013) But after tonight, I will have to reexamine as best I can: To what degree?

12:27 am EST

"YES-MEN and NO-MEN"

[S&B fans, note that this email derives its purpose in part from what might be regrettable about the hotness of the tone of the exchange shared on Smoke and Bounce titled "YOUNG FOOL: HOW HUMILATION HELPS HIM" (11:22 pm EST, April 12, 2013). I suppose I am here trying to redeem what you all might see as a bit too much contrarianism in that exchange. I am attempting a redemption of it indeed, but I in no way apologize for it. Thank you.]

dear K____,

i've been discussing our exchange this past week to my father. i think it's appropriate that this be an email with a new subject line [a white flag], because i want to start fresh with you. there's a number of things i want to say to you to draw a truce, and it's not because i want to negate completely what either of us have already said, however right and wrong we think our-self and the other respectively is.

k____, every young man with your potential goes through a phase in development during which he wants to be free of error. i was the same way, and i still am desiring that; that's natural. but over the years i've come to learn that people in general around me tend to WANT to affirm me always whether i'm right or wrong. throughout my life, 99% of people have told me that i'm extraordinarily intelligent, and the very bad side of that is that they usually don't argue against me on account of their perception of that. i imagine that they probably believe i'm "on the right track" well enough already, and that they don't need to be part of the process of facilitating my personal development; maybe they believe God will affect me and challenge me all by himself, and not require their agency. but i look back now at my life and wish that there had been more adamant "no-men" and less charitable "yes-men" among the people i encountered. in fact, i count myself lucky to have you in my life, because you yourself are most definitely one of the former. believe me, i appreciate your participation in my development.

how would you REALLY wish me to be, k____? would you really WANT me to be a yes-man? i could tell you stories, man, about how evil people like that can be. true, some yes-men genuinely respect you, but other yes-men are charitable as a means of deceiving you until you are vulnerable and they can take advantage of you. a human predator, of any sort -- his primary weapon of murder and rape is insincerity. those sort of yes-men are indeed out there, and there are even entire businesses, institutions and industries who will readily supply you with a sociological model of that predation if you can critique them as a skeptic. you have repeatedly challenged my stance and perspectives, beliefs and conclusions as too cranky to be taken seriously. maybe you're giving me some very useful advice, k____, and i thank you, but if i do attempt to de-radicalize my mission, it will be a fairly glacial process, because my past afflictions besides my ego have induced me to be extremely protective of what integrity my spirit has left.

my MAIN POINT, k____: ask yourself if you trust a man who insults you, and maybe i have insulted you. do you trust that man to at least BE that man? what could you conclude that i "want" FROM YOU? i'll try to answer that; i'll take a stab at it, and you can take it or leave it, sir -- i want your EMPOWERMENT. that's what i've ALWAYS wanted, k____. SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. and though i won't be so slimy as to discuss why i think you trust ME to be NEIL rather than a snake, i'll say that i don't have one bloody regret about this past exchange, and i'm going to continue to be a cocksure, "douche-baggish" no-man to you whenever the fuck it suits me, because i speak no other man's intentions or beliefs than my own. the reality of your having read this far in this email alone, would lead me to assume that you trust me LESS now -- guess what? YOU SHOULD TRUST ME LESS AT THIS VERY MOMENT! but i sure as hell hope that my open disdain of your flagrant immaturity compromises that distrust. and i'm ready to continue the war, because it's exactly what you need regardless of the trust factor.

go to hell. all the best.