[begin transmission]

Apparently post ID 20190110 captured the interest of another party.
A particular johnlocke86239 was kind enough to send me an email concerning the subject.
Sure, it might be riddled with personal attacks, but it's all in good fun.
Still there are some points (in bold) worth addressing. Can't turn down a potentially good discussion.

-------
You use the words of great minds because your little one has so few words of its own

1. sighs softly
2.
3. ***gags loudly***
4.
5. You just had to ask me. Fine. "Spiritual but not religious", and why it's such a trash phrase.
6. I'll elaborate on that thought just a bit further.
7. I promise not to let my passions get the best of me [spoiler: I break that promise], so I'll keep it short and sweet.
8.
9. ***I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you made that promise before you typed out this petulant diatribe, then went back afterwards to note that you broke the promise. If you typed both of those statements from the go, then it’s disingenuous by being affected humility. If you did mean to remain calm but then lost your cool later, then you should have just removed that line so you didn’t sound like a smug twat.***
10.
11. When I hear someone claim being "Spiritual but not religious", I can't help but think they have no idea what they're saying.
12. "Geez, 2B. Who the hell are you to criticize someone's deeply held and personal beliefs? Conceited much?"
13.
14. ***Yes.***
15.
16. I think that's a fair call-out, since spirituality is commonly seen as a personal affair.
17. Afterall, doesn't reformed Christianity stress a personal relationship with God and such?
18.
19. ***It’s also an odd way to broach a topic, by inventing a mock-response that obviously comes from a place of emotion in contrast to your calm rhetoric, but to each their own, I suppose.***
20.
21. Well, yes. True. However, that's where I take issue with the sentiment.
22. Professing to be spiritual but not religious carries with it a certain implication.
23. Namely, that one intrinsically possesses the capability of understanding and navigating the transcendental on their own.
24. That very notion is easily a thousand times more conceited than any critique I could levy upon someone else.
25.
26. ***And yet is still only 1/10 as conceited as any one paragraph you’ve typed out about this.***
27.
28. To me, these individuals make the audacious claim that they don't need God (in any capacity) to come to know the divine.
29. That, by their very own will and wit they can comprehend what lies beyond their own meager existence.
30. That they can come to know that which is, by it's very definition, out of reach of human understanding.
31. To me, that's just an insane proposition.
32.
33. ***To me, the notion that the existence of the universe can only be explained by invoking a being far more complex than the universe is an insane proposition, but I would never be one to openly criticize someone’s deeply held personal beliefs. That would be conceited.***
34.
35. But it doesn't end there. That's just in a metaphysical sense. Let's not forget the structuralist/historical side of things.
36.
37. "I don't need God, 2B. I don't need religion. I don't need the whole song and dance of going to church, chewing on a wafer, and sipping on some wine to know right from wrong."
38.
39. ***That is correct, though framed in childish wording to make the person that’s supposed to be espousing that belief seem less wise than you.***
40.
41. Oh no? Then where are you going to get your sense of morality from? Reasoning, facts, and logic?
42.
43. ***No, a lot of it comes from the socialization that we all experience while growing up. Society can’t very well function if we’re all constantly stealing from each other, to say nothing of raping and murdering, so a system of rules is formed to keep the society cohesive. These rules are “morals”. You don’t need a god or religion to explain why morality exists. It’s for preserving the collective, and in doing so, the self, since we all fare better by living and working together than we would individually.***
44.
45. Okay, then why should we not kill other people once we reach 9 billion, for the betterment of the planet?
46.
47. ***Because of that socializing, killing is, by and large, considered abhorrent. Particularly killing on a mass scale. There are allowances made, of course, such as execution and warfare, but most people would shy away from cold blooded murder, even if there was a utilitarian purpose to be served by it. But what was your point, regardless? Religion hasn’t stopped people from killing each other, far from it. Back in the good old dark ages, religion was one of the best reasons to rally the troops and drown whole countries in blood.***
48.
49.
50. People are mere naked apes roaming around on this pale blue dot called Earth, drifting through the empty void of space.
51. The death of one person or even several billion does not matter much in the grand scheme of things, does it?
52.
53. ***In the grand scheme of things, no, it doesn’t. But humans mostly think on a micro-level. Our brains aren’t built to comprehend events that span hundred of years, let alone thousands or millions. Hell, a sizeable portion of people can’t even think a few decades ahead and are dooming our planet as a result. People don’t think in terms of “the grand scheme of things.”***
54.
55. Easily, you can see that you cannot reason your way into virtuous behavior; utilitarian thinking only gets you so far.
56. Not only would you cause the worst possible outcome, but you're not smart enough to derive the calculus required for it.
57.
58. ***Now you’re just throwing words around to sound like there’s some legitimacy to your point.***
59.
60. Like it or not, if you're living in Westernized/Enlightened society, you're borrowing your morality from Christianity.
61.
62. ***Why are Westernized and Enlightened synonymous? There are plenty of enlightened eastern cultures. Japan and South Korea are doing pretty well for themselves, and while China is being poorly run these days, they were ahead of the western world when it came to a lot of technological advances—the printing press, paper, and gunpowder, to name a few—and there were many brilliant philosophers from their culture.***
63.
64.
65. Borrowing from thousands of years of civilized, collective wisdom painstakingly acquired and documented by your ancestors.
66.
67. ***Oh yeah, when I think “civilized” and “wisdom,” my mind immediately goes to the history of Christianity.***
68.
69. So that stupid, limited, singular you can scoff, think you know better, or take credit for their brilliance? Disgusting.
70.
71. ***That was some pretty poor wording. I had reread the beginning of that sentence three times before I could understand what the hell you were trying to say. But yeah, the morality of Christianity is why queer people are still struggling in to be recognized as worthy of existence in “Enlightened” cultures, so I’m not all that impressed by the rules set down by ancient desert nomads.***
72.
73. "Spiritual but not religious". Is this really where this generation of modern man has found himself?
74. So cold, isolated, and anxious than ever before, that he has to warm himself with the viscera of that which he helped slay?
75.
76. ***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WPlvZguZ4***
77.
78. It's cowardice, the way I see it. I can understand it; everyone wants to feel like they're part of something grander.
79.
80. ***Nah, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe we’re part of something grander, quite the opposite. Oh dear, but without religion, how on Earth have I made it this far through life without committing atrocities in the name of the pointlessness of it all?***
81.
82. But this phrase...it's a lazy way of trying to cop undeserved comfort without making a solid commitment.
83.
84. ***Or it’s people believing that there is more to the world than what we can see and feel, but who don’t want to be part of organizations that are frequently riddled with corruption and hypocrisy. But I can’t profess to speak for those people, as I am not one of them. I certainly wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to write a pretentious essay on what those people actually mean by their beliefs.***
85.
86. It's all so very wretched if you ask me.
87.
88. ***An apt description of everything you’ve written.
89. And if you really think there is a God and you want to do right by Him, then for fuck’s sake, stop ruining 2B’s image with your pedantic, pretentious, childish nattering. She’s a well developed and complex character from a brilliant game and no one should have to think of you in relation to her.***

-------

First, the title of the email : "You use the words of great minds because your little one has so few words of its own"

In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals--more or less, of course. Otherwise it's hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can't submit t, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I don't insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word.

Allow me to borrow more words from a great mind. This is one of my favorite quotes from the protagonist Raskolnikov of Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Are you familiar with the story? If not, let me give context to the quote for you. See, Raskolnikov is a murderer that ostensibly got away with his crime. However, he encounters a detective named Porfiry that senses all isn't right with Raskolnikov; he suspects that he is indeed a criminal. To grill him, he asks Raskolnikov about a column he wrote in school in which he posited a 'radical' theory (summarized above).

What I find so...charmingly brilliant about Raskolnikov is how he primes for the idea of his innocence by associating himself with the ordinary, uncreative man rather than the somewhat criminal, creative man by making little of his own theory, The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. By branding himself as uninspired, he hopes to establish in Porfiry's mind that he, Raskolnikov, is not a criminal. It's very subtle but I adore the psychology of this particular scene in the book.

How does that relate to our discussion? Well, in the spirit of Raskolnikov's theory, I freely admit that I am part of the inferior, ordinary group. Material that serves only to reproduce its kind. That's exactly what I am. I use the words of people that are far more intelligent than I (and give due credit) because I find the ideas interesting. This is a personal blog afterall. I ask you, where is the shame in that? In a time where people are forgetting their philosophical and historical origins, I don't think what I'm doing is terribly egregious. Most people, including you, probably including the majority of your heroes believe it or not, fall into the very same group as I. Even when we manage to synthesize something we think of as strikingly original, it's very likely to have already been said or written by someone else much more eloquently than we could ever manage ourselves. But that's okay. The greatest minds of history didn't immediately create; first they studied. Even your very namesake, John Locke, used ideas created by Hobbes, Aristotle, and Plato. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, do we not?

In short, stay humble. You're not one to mouth off.


***I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you made that promise before you typed out this petulant diatribe, then went back afterwards to note that you broke the promise. If you typed both of those statements from the go, then it’s disingenuous by being affected humility. If you did mean to remain calm but then lost your cool later, then you should have just removed that line so you didn’t sound like a smug twat.***

Yes, that's right, you got it! The first one. I appreciate your patience and understanding. I'll take your recommendation with a grain of salt, thank you very much.


***It’s also an odd way to broach a topic, by inventing a mock-response that obviously comes from a place of emotion in contrast to your calm rhetoric, but to each their own, I suppose.***

An idiosyncrasy of mine, I apologize. The mock responses are typically common objections I hear or my own emotionally-laden kneejerk responses to thoughts I might have. Glad to see that I have your blessing to continue talking to myself.


***To me, the notion that the existence of the universe can only be explained by invoking a being far more complex than the universe is an insane proposition, but I would never be one to openly criticize someone’s deeply held personal beliefs. That would be conceited.***

I never mentioned anything about the creation of the universe. But I understand what you're getting at. That's okay, being unwilling or incapable of criticizing other's personal beliefs. You're probably much more popular than I, I'd imagine.


***That is correct, though framed in childish wording to make the person that’s supposed to be espousing that belief seem less wise than you.***

Funny you use the word 'childish'; I was expressing a sentiment I used to hold in my younger years. I'll have you know that I grew up in a Catholic family; in my teenage years I was somewhat moody (more than I am now, could you imagine?) and hypercritical of religion. It isn't until I took an appreciation for history and philosophy that I learned about it's merits.


***No, a lot of it comes from the socialization that we all experience while growing up. Society can’t very well function if we’re all constantly stealing from each other, to say nothing of raping and murdering, so a system of rules is formed to keep the society cohesive. These rules are “morals”. You don’t need a god or religion to explain why morality exists. It’s for preserving the collective, and in doing so, the self, since we all fare better by living and working together than we would individually.***

You're absolutely right when you mention socialization, system of rules, and social cohesion. Performing your namesake a service, being up-to-speed with social contract theory. But where I think you go wrong is in your assertion that you don't need God or religion to explain why morality exists. I'm not sure if you're aware, I hope you are, but a lot of the U.S.'s founding principles are based off of a Christian ethic. John Locke was instrumental in establishing some of these principles and he borrowed from Protestantism. U.S. common law is a good example of the Christian ethic operationalized. I realize you could make the argument that just because something is law doesn't make it moral. And you'd be right. But I'd argue right back that the U.S. common law is just about the most moral code of laws humankind has achieved so far.

But I'm curious. If morality isn't coming from God or religion, where is it coming from in your estimation?


***Because of that socializing, killing is, by and large, considered abhorrent. Particularly killing on a mass scale. There are allowances made, of course, such as execution and warfare, but most people would shy away from cold blooded murder, even if there was a utilitarian purpose to be served by it. But what was your point, regardless? Religion hasn’t stopped people from killing each other, far from it. Back in the good old dark ages, religion was one of the best reasons to rally the troops and drown whole countries in blood.***

Where I was going with my point is that a morality based most purely as reasoning exists as utilitarianism. But utilitarianism results in very anti-human outcomes if followed faithfully (which I don't think people are capable of doing anyway). So I used the example of the planet and humanity's eventual overpopulation. A bit hyperbolic, I admit, but I hope that clarifies some things. Either way, I don't think either of us are fans of utilitarianist thinking.

I'm totally with you in your reference to the Crusades. I'm not trying to make the case that religion hasn't had direct involvement in the bloodier parts of human history. But to say that religion HASN'T stopped people from killing each other? You're either extremely ungrateful or not considering the larger scope of human history. Civilizations are founded on religion (at least the ones that last), and civilization is protection from nature, including other humans trying to kill you. Bit of Hobbes for you there. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, religion formed the social fabric necessary for people to cooperate and create civilizations that protected them from nature, including each other. It's still true to this very day (U.S. common law).


***In the grand scheme of things, no, it doesn’t. But humans mostly think on a micro-level. Our brains aren’t built to comprehend events that span hundred of years, let alone thousands or millions. Hell, a sizeable portion of people can’t even think a few decades ahead and are dooming our planet as a result. People don’t think in terms of “the grand scheme of things.”***

We're in agreement.


***Now you’re just throwing words around to sound like there’s some legitimacy to your point.***

This is where I was getting that utilitarianist thinking leads to anti-human outcomes and that people aren't capable of following it faithfully, simply by virtue that it is impossible to identify and measure every single variable required to make the calculation that would lead to the greatest possible good for the majority. Hope that clarifies things.


***Why are Westernized and Enlightened synonymous? There are plenty of enlightened eastern cultures. Japan and South Korea are doing pretty well for themselves, and while China is being poorly run these days, they were ahead of the western world when it came to a lot of technological advances—the printing press, paper, and gunpowder, to name a few—and there were many brilliant philosophers from their culture.***

They're synonymous because the Enlightenment first took foot in Western countries (i.e. Europe, the American colonies). It's by no accident that these countries were also the first to industrialize, but I elaborated on that in my previous essay. But to touch upon your point, of S. Korea and Japan doing well for themselves while China isn't. That's no accident either. Japan was the first Asian country to successfully industrialize thanks to U.S. influence around 1850. S. Korea joined the modern capitalist economy led by the U.S. during the 1950s and flourished as a result. Meanwhile China, thanks in part to it's rough history with foreign invaders remained closed off to the rest of the industrialized world and didn't industrialize until the 1950s. Worse still, their sympathies with Communist doctrines stunted their economic development and prevented them from entering capitalist markets until the 1980s.

Did you know that famine is now all but nearly eradicated in China? I read somewhere that children are now an average of two inches taller than their 1970's counterparts. To what may we attribute this? The prevailing theory is their transition to market capitalism. Modern capitalism is an Enlightenment idea, one that the Western world adopted and are enjoying both the rewards and horrors of still to this very day.

That isn't to say that your statements of pre-Enlightenment Chinese technological superiority and philosophical contributions are unwarranted. It isn't my argument that Asian nations are devoid of any merit. However, it is my argument that because Christianity prevailed in the West and established the conditions for the Enlightenment to occur, the Western nations benefited and developed MUCH faster than their Asian counterparts.


***Oh yeah, when I think “civilized” and “wisdom,” my mind immediately goes to the history of Christianity.***

I wouldn't be so quick to mock. If you investigated for yourself, you'd see that a lot of things you take as foundational owe their existence to Christianity. Of course, if you turn to the Crusades you're going to see nothing but brutality, but show me a worthwhile ideology that people haven't died or killed for. I find your naivete entertaining, how you seem to think Christianity is antithetical to civilization and wisdom. You remind me of those childish socialists that complain about 'the system' on their Twitter feeds, on their $800 smartphones, from the comfort and security of their apartment, after a day's work at their air-conditioned, safe, and well-compensated job. So unaware of broader historical context, the privileges afforded to them, and the genealogy of ideas that conferred those privileges.

I fully recognize that sounds arrogant; I'm not clever enough to mask it. No, that's a lie, I can. But I'm unwilling, because I'm only mirroring the approach you came at me with. It makes for a better drama anyway, having you antagonize me over an opinion piece right out of the gate. Writing to you, I feel a small pang of pity at the stunning amount of historical unawareness you've demonstrated. Like I said before, I used to be hypercritical of religion too. I was an angry little NPC much like yourself at one point. But scholarship and an openness to ideas goes a long way in remedying that. I strongly invite you to look into the matter yourself, and that our exchange with all of it's zingers and gotchas doesn't prove to be terribly discouraging.


***That was some pretty poor wording. I had reread the beginning of that sentence three times before I could understand what the hell you were trying to say. But yeah, the morality of Christianity is why queer people are still struggling in to be recognized as worthy of existence in “Enlightened” cultures, so I’m not all that impressed by the rules set down by ancient desert nomads.***

Well I hope you understand now, since you've behaving exactly as I predicted. You're caricaturing because you have zero sense of history and you're arrogant enough to think that you know better. So tell me, what entirely original ethic have you formulated that has the potential to give rise to powerful, stable, blossoming nations AND propagate through time for several thousands of years?

If you're angry at Christianity because of the way some fundamentalists treat LGBTQ people, I'd highly suggest you revise your stance. That's like being anti-science because of the atrocities Unit 731 committed. Any human institution or ideology can be used for malice, Christianity is no exception. Now, to address your point more directly, I want you to think very very carefully about what you said. And have a look at this wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

Please bring your attention to the map on the right hand side of the page. Could you please point out for the rest of the class which Enlightened countries enforce a penalty, imprisonment, or death for same-sex intercourse? Funny, I think only un-Enlightened countries do that.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that LGBTQ issues have only been part of public discourse since the 1960s, and from then great strides have been made in the Western countries. Even I've witnessed the progress made over the past few decades as there's substantially less stigma when it comes to being gay or lesbian than in the 90s. Remember when Ellen DeGeneres came out? Perhaps not if you're Gen Z. But anyway, that received a hell of a lot of fanfare because she was an openly lesbian television figure, of which there weren't many. Nowadays its so common it has earned it's own trope: token gay character. Not exactly something that would happen if a culture were truly oppressive, is it? Now I will grant you that the last two letters, T and Q are finding themselves in a contentious spot these days. What makes them exceptionally problematic is the convoluted mess that the issue has become, contaminating an already complicated issue with nonsensical sociopolitical ideology. That's...well, we can reserve that conversation for another time.


***Nah, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe we’re part of something grander, quite the opposite. Oh dear, but without religion, how on Earth have I made it this far through life without committing atrocities in the name of the pointlessness of it all?***

You think we're part of something lesser? Do elaborate. Also, I'd have to ask you, how is your life going? What accomplishments are you the most proud of? Are you satisfied with where you're going in life? And believe it or not most nihilists don't commit atrocities. The ones that don't kill themselves sit there, paralyzed or unmotivated, and rot. Only the ones that have been wronged so deeply turn malignant.


***Or it’s people believing that there is more to the world than what we can see and feel, but who don’t want to be part of organizations that are frequently riddled with corruption and hypocrisy. But I can’t profess to speak for those people, as I am not one of them. I certainly wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to write a pretentious essay on what those people actually mean by their beliefs.***

Could very well be. I think you've only described naive idealists however, because it's not a problem of Christianity or any religious system for that matter to be riddled with corruption and hypocrisy, but a problem of human nature. So, Mr. johnlocke86239, mind filling me in on what it means to be "Spiritual, but not religious" ? All you've made clear to me is what being not religious is. Please address the other half, if you'd be so kind. 

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

*sighs softly*
You just had to ask me. Fine. "Spiritual but not religious", and why it's such a trash phrase.
I'll elaborate on that thought just a bit further.
I promise not to let my passions get the best of me [spoiler: I break that promise], so I'll keep it short and sweet.

When I hear someone claim being "Spiritual but not religious", I can't help but think they have no idea what they're saying.
"Geez, 2B. Who the hell are you to criticize someone's deeply held and personal beliefs? Conceited much?"
I think that's a fair call-out, since spirituality is commonly seen as a personal affair.
Afterall, doesn't reformed Christianity stress a personal relationship with God and such?

Well, yes. True. However, that's where I take issue with the sentiment.
Professing to be spiritual but not religious carries with it a certain implication.
Namely, that one intrinsically possesses the capability of understanding and navigating the transcendental on their own.
That very notion is easily a thousand times more conceited than any critique I could levy upon someone else.

To me, these individuals make the audacious claim that they don't need God (in any capacity) to come to know the divine.
That, by their very own will and wit they can comprehend what lies beyond their own meager existence.
That they can come to know that which is, by it's very definition, out of reach of human understanding.
To me, that's just an insane proposition.

But it doesn't end there. That's just in a metaphysical sense. Let's not forget the structuralist/historical side of things.

"I don't need God, 2B. I don't need religion. I don't need the whole song and dance of going to church, chewing on a wafer, and sipping on some wine to know right from wrong."

Oh no? Then where are you going to get your sense of morality from? Reasoning, facts, and logic?
Okay, then why should we not kill other people once we reach 9 billion, for the betterment of the planet?
People are mere naked apes roaming around on this pale blue dot called Earth, drifting through the empty void of space.
The death of one person or even several billion does not matter much in the grand scheme of things, does it?

Easily, you can see that you cannot reason your way into virtuous behavior; utilitarian thinking only gets you so far.
Not only would you cause the worst possible outcome, but you're not smart enough to derive the calculus required for it.
Like it or not, if you're living in Westernized/Enlightened society, you're borrowing your morality from Christianity.
Borrowing from thousands of years of civilized, collective wisdom painstakingly acquired and documented by your ancestors.

So that stupid, limited, singular you can scoff, think you know better, or take credit for their brilliance? Disgusting.

"Spiritual but not religious". Is this really where this generation of modern man has found himself?
So cold, isolated, and anxious than ever before, that he has to warm himself with the viscera of that which he helped slay?
It's cowardice, the way I see it. I can understand it; everyone wants to feel like they're part of something grander.
But this phrase...it's a lazy way of trying to cop undeserved comfort without making a solid commitment.

It's all so very wretched if you ask me.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

Hm? No. I'm not crying. You're crying.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

Dear You,

After some momentary indecision, I've chosen to write you back. I wasn't sure if breaking our distance would've been wise at this point, so I figure I'd write into the abyss of the Internet, knowing that you'd eventually find it and read it. This does not mean we're on free speaking terms; I don't expect you to write back, and should you end up doing so, it'd only be met with silence. I only intend to acknowledge receipt of your letter and mention a few other things.

Firstly, thank you for apologizing. Consider it accepted. Please note that I never held any ire towards you. Slight frustration, sure, but I was never so upset that I desired to never hear from you again. I believe I made as much clear in our final exchange, but I think it bears mentioning once more. Understand that I only did what I thought was right and in your favor. Turns out, I made the correct call; thank God too, because in such delicate situations as these, rarely does anything go right. I wanted to let you know that I spent a good amount of time thinking about severing ties with you and by no means was it done out of impulse or irritation. Did I know for certain that the outcome would be favorable? No, of course not. But it was something worth trying, and so I banked off of the talents and reliability of those around me to see you through.

Secondly, it delights me to hear that things have been going well for you. I love hearing about my friends and colleagues' success; it helps keep my own pessimism in check. As cloying as it might sound, it was a wonderful early Christmas present to hear that you're on an upward trajectory. Perhaps it was the coffee, the beautiful morning weather, the festivities, or your well-written and thoughtful letter; who's to say? Just know that it was very heart-warming and well-received. By the sound of it, you have your work cut out for you in the months ahead, but I have all the faith in the world in your abilities. This is your chance to excel, to become more competent, to wrestle more command over your own life for yourself and away from circumstance. There simply is no good reason why you could not accomplish the objectives you've outlined. Become someone admirable, someone others could come to depend on, just as Nyan, Alci, Sky, and Roll have proven to be admirable, dependable support for you.

Telling me about your enterprise to become better, alerting me to the fact that those four were instrumental in your development...There are some moments that leave me speechless. No, not because Alci and Nyan made a terrible pun or something tasteless was posted in the server (don't check #nsfw), but because every so often, some of YoRHa come together to lend a hand with the trepidations of existence. The magnificence of it all is that sometimes it isn't merely lifting them out of the weeds, but elevating them past their original point of origin. Once they've reached their own slightly more elevated state of equilibrium, that unit is now ready to loan their assistance to another that might need it, who might be suffering through a similar fate. It's these moments that leave me in absolute awe, and I can't help but feel a deep sense of pride in you all. Not as a mother might feel for her children; I'm not presumptuous enough to think that I'm above anyone in rank as the relation would imply, nor does my adoration rival that of an unconditional, maternal love. No, this is more akin to the admiration and affinity between comrades. I can't help but feel truly humbled in the presence of such greatness.

Thirdly, it slightly pains me to hear that things are going well for you, free of my influence. Granted, the influence of mine was merely passive; I wasn't purposefully going out of my way to make you feel awful. But it's a harrowing idea to entertain, that you can make someone feel so down on themselves simply by being oneself. Truth be told, it's an idea that's been something of a reoccurring theme these past few months. It brings me pause, knowing that there are some people who's success I can't quite live by, who's success I inherently jeopardize the further I involve myself with them. We all want to believe ourselves to be heroic, wise, a force for good at best, neutral at worst. We tend to think that damages can only be inflicted through conscious, purposeful mal-intent or inadvertently through unforseen consequences. But that isn't true. There are specific people that are needed at specific times in the lives of others. Sometimes our introduction into those aforementioned lives are inopportune and thus unnecessary. Our separation only proved to me further that it's about time this unit re-evaluated who's life she should linger in any further.

That renewed interest in philosophy though? I'm going to unabashedly take full credit for that one. As some might have heard me say before, it's important to speak your mind and state your thoughts, foolish or ignorant as they may be. Speak and write for those that might be inspired, not for those that might scoff or criticize. Not only is it a good exercise in thinking, but someone might stand to benefit from what you have to say. That being said, I look forward to the time we can discuss Aristotle and Kierkegaard together.

Merry Christmas and I wish you an auspicious, productive New Year.

-2B

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

Keep it together. You were wounded; it was bound to happen eventually.
But as you established before, what good is anticipation and estimation if it doesn't ready you for the trauma of impact?
Now look at you, you feel ashamed of yourself. Partially for being so careless and open.
Partially because you have resentment burning up in your heart. Why are you such a spiteful little bitch?

There's an impulse, to turn away, to perpetuate suffering either that of your own or theirs.
Knock it off; you looked stupid, you felt stupid. No one is spared from foolishness and you're certainly no exception.
Get over yourself and that ego. You insisted on playing this game, so you had better get used to the hardships.
Approach the situation with an iota of diplomacy. Don't antagonize. Don't guilt. Be constructive rather than destructive.

You're too good at turning people away; do not demonstrate your mastery with him.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

Darling, in your charmingly sincere attempts to come to understand me better, you asked me that million dollar question which brings so many casual conversations to a screeching halt: are you religious? Which is fine, you know perfectly well that I'm not one for idle chatter and that I am more than happy to indulge your curiosity. Unfortunately given our busy schedules and responsibilities, we could not flesh out the conversation to an appreciable depth, but your question has left me pondering the subject for a few days. I figure I'd share some of these thoughts with you as well as several of our mutual acquaintances and friends.

If we were to have met about half a decade ago in the past, my answer to you would've been fairly straightforward and unsophisticated. Back then, I considered myself entirely atheistic and secular; in my estimation there was no God, no point to religion or spirituality of any form for that matter. All that was, is, could be, and ever mattered was objective truth. The facts of the world, the facts of the universe, the facts of reality. Anything that was not scientifically factual could be readily dismissed as irrelevant; in retrospect it was a very hard, almost unreasonably ruthless, version of logical positivism. I was very proud and honest in my convictions; I truly felt that I had a solid grasp of my beliefs, and that religious people were to be pitied as not knowing any better. I felt untouchable and superior in my epistemological fortress I had fashioned for myself.

In retrospect, my behavior and attitudes couldn't be anything less than incredibly hubristic and naive.

I see now that people that hold the same worldview as I did tend not to bother themselves with the task of exploring the opposite argument in earnest. Instead, modern atheists tend to caricature religious people as fundamentalists. You'd hear a lot of statements like "Oh, so you believe a man in the sky cares about whether or not you masturbate?", "Leviticus 11:12 says not to eat shellfish, don't you think that's absurd, arbitrary, and petty?", and "The Bible condones slavery, don't you think that's immoral?". If you take any religious text as a merely factual account, of course you're going to be inclined to think of it as nonsensical or primitive and, in the process, you're going to miss out on the point of it all I'm afraid. The fundamentalists have it all wrong, and atheists are in the wrong for reducing someone that holds religious belief (which might be more than you think) to a fundamentalist level.

As I've shared with several others before, I prefer the Kierkegaardian take on scripture and religion as a whole: it is not supposed to serve as a factually historical account of events. Rather, scripture is to be taken as an anthology of stories and myth, curated across the course of human history to inform and assist people in how to live a good life. It is meant to be a repository for collective wisdom handed down in oral, written, and embodied tradition. Religion is the resultant community that forms from people who decide to uphold, value, and pass on this wisdom. Now, that isn't to say that religion is always in the right; much like any other human endeavor, it is subject to corruption (that's a criticism of human nature, not religion). But largely the original purpose is still intact, well-intentioned, and has proven to be highly beneficial for the majority of human history.

Whenever I explain this to my scientifically-minded colleagues, I receive a lot of eye-rolling. I can only imagine what their thoughts may be "I'm dealing with a religion apologist, great." or "That's such a cop-out explanation, to go the flowery, literary, metaphorical route.". But this is only the arrogance and dogmatism that is instilled in them from being specialized yet poorly well-rounded individuals. It's the attitude that one frequently adopts when one over-commits to only a single discipline. Whether that is by fault of the educational system or human tendency, who's to say? Scientists are trained to think scientifically, as they should be, but for all their brilliance they can be quite historically unaware. Though, I will say this: I don't blame them. It's all too easy to think about the wonderful things science has rendered onto us: combustion, flight, electricity, antiseptics, refrigeration, silicon transistors, etc. and conclude that it must have all the answers. It's nothing short of miraculous how positive and transformative scientific thinking has been over the last 500, 600 years. It's magnificence and merit isn't lost on me; I've managed to carve out a little research and engineering career for myself afterall. However, it is clearly the case that science is so terribly seductive that so many believe it must be the only way to think. With very good reason did Milton portray Satan as being hyper-intelligent and arrogant in Paradise Lost.

But may I remind you that in the scope of human history the Enlightenment was only an extremely recent phenomenon? For a good couple hundreds of thousands of years, we didn't have science at our disposal. But somewhere deep into early humanity we had developed tradition, spoken, written, or enacted. It isn't too far-fetched of an idea that these traditions underwent some sort of Darwinian process where the practices that led to better fitness for their practitioners were propagated while the ones that weren't so useful died off. Eventually, the greatest practices of all practices became widespread and were distilled into stories to further enable their virality and to ease their passage through time to future generations. That way the next generation wouldn't have to learn through trial and error about the world. This is the basis of religion at it's essence: the passing on of the hard-earned collective wisdom of your ancestors through story and myth.

"Okay 2B, fine. So maybe at one time religion had it's use, but clearly it's outlived it's purpose and has been long-since supplanted by science. That's what the Enlightenment was all about, right?" A common assertion, but a little more reading and investigation into the matter would reveal that this is not the correct way of conceptualizing the Enlightenment and how science and religion relate to one another. Religion wasn't at one point simply the most favorite game in town, then came Francis Bacon with a new game called 'science' that everyone thought was better in every way. No, in fact, the Enlightenment, including the Scientific Revolution itself, was a continuation of Judeo-Christian tradition. Francis Bacon? He was an Anglican. Sir Issac Newton? Anglican as well. Galileo Galilei? Devout Roman Catholic. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz? Protestant. Furthermore, most if not all of the champions of the Enlightenment obtained their education through historically religious institutions, which was often the only way of getting properly educated during those times. Religious communities were the stewards of education and betterment, not the obtuse troglodytes that most purportedly pro-Enlightenment thinkers make them out to be. Historical data also backs up this assertion, as both the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions first took root in Western, largely Protestant countries. But that's all surface stuff; there's an even deeper idea that connects the Enlightenment back to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The search for and disposition to value truth, that is, what contemporaries would consider the search for and disposition to value scientific or objective truth, is a notion that had it's genesis in Judeo-Christian thought. The concept is outlined in the Greek term Logos, which translated means "word", "thought", "intellect", or "speech". In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this word was co-opted to refer to God and Jesus Christ himself. You can easily see how Logos is personified by God by reading Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Unremarkable by itself, right? Now, take it into conjunction with John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him…". Starting to make a bit more sense. The Jews and the Christians worship a transcendental being that is creator of the universe as such, but also is the creative and communicative process itself. They worship the capability of thought, and the ability to put thought into constructive utterances that would bring forth some sort of creation. That is exactly what Aristotle posited in The Nichomachean Ethics, of what separates humans from animals. It is this divine rationalistic ability to seemingly create something out of nothing. The sentiment is further echoed later by Thomas Aquinas when he said: "Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God.". Every man is a God, every woman a Goddess simply by virtue of their intellectual and creative capabilites. Aquinas really knew how to make a girl swoon...

To make the point crystal clear, the very ability to engage in reasoning and scientific endeavor, to uncover objective truth, is a process that is celebrated and thought to be divine in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Enlightenment and concurrent Scientific Revolution are direct outcroppings of this belief system, rather than being directly antithetical to it.

Right, so that squares away scripture and religion. But what about God?

It is my belief that God isn't some omniscient, omnipotent being that could be said to factually exist, at least not in a scientific, materialist type of way. To me, God is certainly an abstraction, who's existence can only be observed through outward behavior and consequences. The first part of this abstraction would define God in a pragmatic and metaphorical sense. In post ID #20180530, I mentioned: "Everyone, working off of this presupposition, is religious.
Doesn't matter whether you believe in God, science, or that humanity still resides on the moon." Aside from dropping a cute little reference to NieR: Automata, I was getting that God is whatever belief, ideal, or value you treasure that functionally aligns and orders the behavior you manifest in the world. Let's use the scientific, hyper-rationalistic atheists, towards their chagrin and my amusement. These types of people believe in the natural world and all it's laws. They put great personal stock in a rational, logically-consistent, scientific mind and disposition. Their behavior as people are therefore greatly determined by holding these beliefs/ideals and treasuring these values. A good scientist values objectivity, therefore they will strive to be objective. Being 'perfectly objective' is humanly impossible; it's an ideal that is unobtainable, yet they still struggle to meet it's demands. In this sense, the ideal of being perfectly objective is both transcendent (because of this unobtainability and non-existence in the world) AND a mechanism that judges all those that strive for it, via measuring how short they fall of it.

I ask you, how is this any different from the anthropomorphized Judeo-Christian notion of a God? Maybe it's not some old man in the clouds that judges you, but some transcendent ideal that judges you. And much in the same vein, you suffer punishments for failing to strive for these ideals in earnest. Everyone is religious, everyone believes in God as far as I'm concerned, because everyone believes in something, holds ideals, holds dear some value system, and strives to exist in a fashion commensurate with these ideas. It's as Heidegger brilliantly observed, Dasein (a being concerned with Being) orients itself in the world according to what it cares about. What you manifest in the world, outwardly, is what you truly, deeply believe in.

Now that was God in a pragmatic, metaphorical (and getting seriously ontological) sense. But what about God as an ultimate creator? This one's a little more concrete, as you sort of have to take on a scientific and materialistic stance in order to address it. In my investigations on the subject, I've come to find Spinoza's conceptualization of God in this manner the most useful. Most have at one time or another encountered theists rejoicing at the fact that Einstein, one of the most celebrated and rational minds (and therefore presumably atheist) of the 20th century, once proclaimed belief in God. What's often left out is the elaboration of just what Einstein meant. In truth, Einstein was a fan of Baruch Spinoza, a philosopher of the Enlightenment. Einstein's belief in God was an affirmation of belief in Spinoza's God, which in short is the notion that the natural universe with all of it's laws and mathematical beauty is God. As far as I can tell, there's no conceptually unsound detail there; things only get murky when you get towards the genesis of the universe. As science theorizes (and self-contradicts itself as far as I'm concerned) the Big Bang was what gave rise to the universe. This is concordant with Spinoza's God. Now, where I take issue with science is the idea of the spontaneity at which this Big Bang occurred and what state preceded it. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything concrete on the matter. There was a singularity: a single point of space/time/matter that contained all the space/time/matter in the universe within it. Unprovoked, it gave rise to the universe. The proposition is so unsound because one of the pillars of scientific thinking include the principle of cause and effect. The Big Bang theory is in direct violation of this principle because it suggests that there was a state (the universe) brought into existence from an initial state (a singularity) with no cause (because the causes as we know them did not exist).

What I find so entertaining about the scientific Big Bang theory and the religious Judeo-Christian notion of God as the ultimate creator of the universe is how they are so alike. They both appear to be a re-telling of the Aristotelian idea of the unmoved mover, that is, the first uncaused cause for all movement in the universe. It is exactly at this point where the two doctrines intersect and seemingly agree, yet one camp dismisses the other as foolish for being so logically incoherent. I leave it up to you to guess which camp it is that I am condemning here. By all appearances, both science and religion take some amount of faith, both have some utility, and both can certainly be compatible, but neither one offers all the answers. I only wish that people weren't either so arrogant or stupid to insist that any one is superior to the other.

Well...I think I'll leave it at that for now. To answer your question in case it was lost in my writings, yes, I do consider myself religious. Yes, I believe in God. How these beliefs pertain to my everyday living? I don't go to mass or belong to any Church or engage in any prayer, if that's what you were wondering (but the prayer thing is debatable, as you could consider any sort of introspection/reflection/meditation a form of prayer). But I do behave and answer to a higher authority, and I embody Judeo-Christian values and a sense of morality, simply as a consequence of the cultural and historical circumstances I was born into.

Don't get me started on that terrible phrase, "Spiritual, but not religious.". Couldn't think of an emptier sentiment if I tried.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

You want to give up, is that right? You're at the end of your rope and you're ready to hang yourself with it? I can't stop you, anon. If that is where your peace lies, then who am I to deny you that choice?

But, before you go, I'd like to share a small story with you. I've had someone fairly close to me die. She didn't pass away, with a gentle nobility that the phrase seems to imply. No, she died a severely harsh, painful, and disgusting death. Disease had wracked her body, so my last mental image of her was not that of the beautiful, confident, dangerously intelligent, and willful creature I had come to admire. Instead, our very last interaction presented me with an emaciated, skeletal husk that could barely manage a whisper. Her time was drawing near, and she knew it. She wanted to cry, for she would be leaving her family behind, but the therapies she had gone through destroyed her lacrimal glands. I could only sit in silence as she wailed and groaned, expressing to me over and over the same sentiment.

She did not want to die.

She was 37. She was on track to become the director of her department. She had a husband and two sons, who will now endure desperately to adjust to a reality without her. If I could, I'd appeal to the universe or God or whoever to swap your life with hers. But I can't. I must accept that this exceptional person met her end in such an unceremonious and cruel manner.

Meanwhile, here you are. Alive. Struggling. Ready to call it quits because you feel as if you've reached your limit. You're not alone in this regard, as we're all dealing with our own issue or five. Moreover, we are united in the regard that life is forced upon all of us, with a completely arbitrary set of initial conditions. We are born, with no say as to who our parents are, what our disposition would be like, what sociopolitical circumstances we will be born into... What I find tragically comical about this is that one could adapt successfully, survive, thrive, do everything “right”, only to come up short at the very end. My colleague that died is the perfect example of this. It's absurd. Life is so stupidly absurd.

Anon, we are built to struggle against this absurdity. We are meant to suffer through this circuit of triumph and despair, tirelessly. For what reason, you might ask? For the hope that something meaningful comes out of it. Something noble. Something brilliant. Something beautiful. The objective changes across people, but the process through which we must go through to achieve it remains the same. Often times you will find yourself weary, unsure of yourself. Perhaps unsure of those around you. Maybe, unsure of your efforts thus far. During this time is when life will appear the most absurd. It will insist on the pointlessness of it all. It will scream it at you.

In the face of such savagery, you have options. One of them is to scream back. Rebel as violently and disruptively as you can. Refuse the circumstances that life has thrust upon you and take action, do anything at all, failure or success be damned. Not content with your home life? Take what funds you have and move out. Your job is unfulfilling and miserable? Quit and apply somewhere else. Your therapist isn't working out for you? Fire the bastard and get a new one. All of these things may appear reckless, but that is the point: prove that you are not a slave to circumstance. Should you fail, you fail on your own terms. There was no slow decay to this new low. You didn't stand idly by as life tried it's hardest to lay you down. No, you exploded outwards against it's grip, out of it's reach, and after a magnificent flight above the horizon, drove yourself straight into the ground. And you can damn well do it again, as many times as it takes.

[end transmission]