[begin transmission]

I figured I'd outline a philosophical dilemma I've been contending w/ recently. I think it's a neat little puzzle to think about.
Oddly enough, it's convergent w/ the writings of none other than the good Professor himself.

We've had the opportunity to discuss the matter over some hot sake, the smoothest of whiskies, and yummy sushi. 

An experience to commit to treasured memories, for sure, but ultimately indeterminate in resolution.

For those interested, you may read his manuscript here.

Humanism

In order to understand the issue at hand, it is important to outline and understand the philosophical viewpoints involved. The first I'd like to define is that of humanism. For those that are uninitiated, you might've heard the term being thrown about by secular atheists of the 2000s era, used to express a kind of Enlightenment ontology/epistemology in which man is free to pursue his own interests towards the betterment of humanity--rationally and morally--independent of any subservience to a master or God. When I speak of humanism, I am not referring to this doctrine, though it is somewhat related. No, the humanism that I am referring to is the view that humanity holds a special place in the cosmos. Part of what imbues men w/ their exceptional character is their free will, consciousness, and their rational/creative capacities, among other intellectual capabilities. This view is foundational towards modern liberalism, individualism, and democracy; real Enlightenment era type of stuff whose development stretches back to the Renaissance era and even further then to the ancient Classical era. A central tenet of this view is that all things else, including animals, natural forces, culture, machines, and technics, are inferior and subservient to man. Why? Because mankind outclasses them in terms of the intellect. Think Aristotle observing that men are superior to animals b/c they are rational and political. Think Dostoevsky lamenting how cruel men can be compared to animals, w/ the implication being that man is a moral creature. Moreover, in considering man's relationship to culture, machines, and technics, man is superior because all of these things are created by him and are instruments of his will.

As the Professor writes w/ such palpable conviction:

Tear apart your computer—it is naught but parts put into interlocking unity by man. A man baked transistors into a crystal, a man routed each copper trace, a man designed and programmed and engineered...Know this: the machine is doomed to be man’s inferior. It is our creation and each of its parts are put into place by us. It is imperative we understand this property of computational systems.

It is this elevation to the tippy-top of this hierarchy mankind places himself that is challenged by posthumanism, To the posthumanist, this is a conceit. What do they have to say on the matter?

Posthumanism

Posthumanist thought could be credited to Spinoza ("All is One") but the more contemporary strain is credited to none other than the hammer himself: Friedrich Nietzsche. Where humanism posits that mankind is superior to all else, particularly as a consequence of being God's favored creation, Nietzsche came and certainly flipped the script when he declared the death of God, theorizing that man is not put on the Earth towards some special purpose or end. To Nietzsche, conceptualizing something of a special purpose or end is mere continuation of "herd morality"; a way for others, particularly through religion, to control and constrain his fellow man. This control includes the suppression of his will to power, that is, his ultimately irrational, creative, vital force (as a side note here, I find it very amusing that this is where the Professor unwittingly intersects and agrees w/ posthumanism). However, this will to power is not an exclusively human force, but more a feature of life itself. It is from this premise that most posthumanists craft their theories.

The theories that I found to be the most powerful and thought-provoking include the machinic and technic exercise of the will to power; the machinic being attributed to Donna Harrington in A Cyborg Manifesto and the technic to Bernard Stiegler in Technics and Time. In the former, Harrington argues that for the majority of human history mankind has relied on machines and technology to aid and augment his cognition. A contemporary example of this would be our reliance on smartphones to access information on the fly: we can easily conduct a Google search to look up information we're uncognizant of, or look up a Wikipedia page for a crash course on a subject we're unfamiliar w/ (and subsequently act as an authoritative expert in online argument). We utilize Google or Apple maps for navigation instead of trying to triangulate our position w/ the starry night sky. Our calendar apps allow us to set reminders of important dates and appointments so that we wouldn't have to expend the cognitive effort required of recollection. A little less universal, but still fairly contemporary example is the usage of eyeglasses and contacts to correct myopic vision, or the usage of deep brain stimulation devices in Parkinsons patients. In both of these instances, machines and technology enable us to experience reality to a fuller breadth that otherwise would be unavailable w/o their assistance. In a very tangible way, machines and technology have created and enabled us access to a layer of a reality that is superimposed on our naked, creature perceptive mechanisms.

Such is the argument for machinic exercise of the will to power, in constructing reality. Now what about the argument for technics? This is one of the propositions put forth by Stiegler. It is within the humanist framework that you will find sentiments such as art, culture, and history (technics) are created by man, b/c he is rational. Stiegler essentially inverts this and posits that b/c of art, culture, and history is man rational. Seems like a absurd proposition at first glance, but I ask you to consider your present situation. You, dear reader, are sitting there w/ all kinds of thoughts floating around in your head. These thoughts are not entirely your own, but are possibly borrowed from something you have learned through experience. A subset of those thoughts are informed by things you have read, no doubt. Perhaps you're thinking of Plato's Phaedo? Now, would you have been thinking of Phaedo had you not read it? What condition has enabled you to read it? Hopefully it is obvious that a necessary condition is that Phaedo had been published in either a bibliographical or electronic format. What condition enabled this publishing? The necessary technological conditions of either mass printing or digital storage/distribution. What enabled that? The technological conditions of written language. And that? The technology of paper, the technology of clay tablets, and ultimately, the technology of fire. I don't mean to belabor the point here, but I hope that it is now obvious that technology has enabled you to think the way that you do, and that art, culture, and history has shaped the way that you think. In a sense, technics have created you. If this 'in a sense' qualifier seems like weak tea to you, as a too-abstract of an argument of technic's creation of mankind, then okay. I invite you you contend w/ the popular anthropological theory known as the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. Essentially it posits that when earlier man switched from a plant-based diet to one of a meat-based omnivore diet, it led to the evolution of a larger brain and smaller digestive tract. This, in turn, led to an explosion in intelligence that eventually enabled man to use more sophisticated tools, hunting strategies, form societies, etc. What does that have to do w/ technics? Well, no big surprise, but it turns out that cooked animal protein is easier to digest and makes nutrients more bioavailable in the human body. Animal protein cooked by fire. So there you have it: technics have literally created man and enabled his intellectual capacities as we know them today, both in a fact-of-the-matter materialistic viewpoint as well as in a more abstract, cultural viewpoint.

Epilogus

In summary, I do not want to leave the reader w/ the impression that humanity and technics are necessarily antagonistic in relation to each other. To do so would be to commit the same mistake as the Professor (though, to his credit, he is addressing a specific subset of posthumanists); no, I don't think that most posthumanists are not out to undermine humanism w/ the purpose to destroy religion and family, chip us with neural implants, and enslave us to evil AI overlords. The main take-away here is that humanity, machines, and technics share a sort of symbiotic relationship, where one party enables the creative capacities of the other. Man creates culture and technology with his rational capacities, but this process was created and enabled by previous culture and technology, which was created by previous man...so forth and so on, indeterminately. We'll call it a more sophisticated chicken-or-the-egg problem. It still stands, however, that the two entities have a shared history of mutual creation, and that is something to take into consideration whenever claims of one being superior to another are being made. In my mind, it is a mature realization by which addressing we will make more headway in these issues, rather than beating strawmen caricatured extremes into submission.

I do have to say...the above propositions above I found to be rather compelling as well as particularly disquieting. I cannot deny the truth behind these arguments; in order to discredit them, the problem would have to be attacked from a new conceptual angle if there is ever hope to reassert mankind's supremacy over, well, everything else. The disquietude comes partially from the dissonance that arises between these ideas and my own religious beliefs, beliefs that, as I mentioned, inform the entire Enlightenment project. If this presupposition--the supremacy of mankind and his rationality--is subverted, then the entire bastion is left in shambles. Not only is this presupposition being challenged on a theoretical level, as we have addressed in the previous arguments, but it is also being challenged empirically. At the time of this writing, AI-generated art is going meteoric and Tesla's autonomous self-driving features are on the precipice of being fully unleashed into the world. These two domains, the aesthetic realm of artistic creation and the pragmatic realm of rational decision-making are territories that were once thought to be unique and dominated by human intellect. There is a lot to address in these two examples I've cited, and I have gotten into spirited discussions w/ the Professor over them (someone explain to us what non-Turing computation is!), but we won't cover it now. However, they are indicative that we're treading into some uncharted territory, and it remains an open question as to how far these technologies will go and the implications for mankind's role in all of it.

The rest of the unease comes from the question of whether these arguments should be discredited in the first place. As I read more into postmodern philosophy, the more interesting stuff beyond critical theory or deconstruction, I find that there are some real teeth to these philosopher's claims. Perhaps I'm a bit biased b/c of my control engineering background, but I've become enamored w/ the writing of Deleuze and Guattari and Nick Land; their bold assertion of people as machines and postulations of cybernetic societies and cultures are not just merely aesthetic decisions when it comes to syntax or metaphor. In a future post I'll prolly cover a few of their ideas, as it sort of lends some understanding towards this...absolute craziness of a zeitgeist that characterizes the early 21st century, and possibly predicts the character of the second half that's still yet to come.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

So here we are

Back to the start again

Trying hard to wait till morning...

What more can be said about our current situation? A great deal more to be honest. The grand question is should any of it be said? Grander still, would it make a difference? Probably not; you've made it painfully clear that you've checked out and all I ever seem to accomplish these days is hurting you more. So I'm going to hold off, despite how strongly I feel you should hear it. Maybe I should reserve it for a call sometime, though even the chance of that happening is functionally non-existent. Yet, even if I did choose to bring it up then, it'll probably only serve to add insult to injury. So there's the catch-22 of the predicament we find ourselves in, from my perspective: do I bite my tongue and let us bleed out or do I claw out both of our hearts? Meanwhile you're resolute in not improving the matter. How miserable.

In any case, I disapprove of the conclusion you've reached. Your reflection on yourself and your relationships led you to resolve that you should become more distant and cold. In truth I think it's cowardice on your part, and I'm not saying that to be needlessly insulting; I think it is sincere cowardice to refuse to open up to others out of fear of getting hurt. It speaks of a certain kind of impoverished heart and weakness of character: you cannot take on the risk that comes w/ vulnerability b/c you cannot afford to sustain the potential emotional toll. Is there so little to you that your own self must be miserly hoarded and protected? As I told you several times before, risk is part and parcel when someone chooses to genuinely love. I know, it's tough, and I've been burned enough to come to dislike it too, but those are the terms. And to think you used to get so upset whenever I doubted your love... I'm not saying this w/ triumph by any means but rather despair, but I knew I was right. Genuine love is a hard feat to pull off, more than I think you can appreciate, and it goes far beyond sheer force of asserting "I really love you.". It's so stupidly easy to profess absolute love and commitment when things are going well; entirely different story when the subject of your affection is behaving in a way unworthy of it.

But your attitude also smacks of cowardice in another manner: you lack the resolve to end things properly w/ me, opting instead to pursue this...I'm not sure what to even call it. Why on the Moon would I accept a degradation of our relationship? You expressly stated that you were going to be less loving, less caring than you originally were, and yet you wish to remain in my life. What the fuck is that? Did you honestly think I was going to accept those conditions? I'm truly dumbfounded that you thought this was a tenable solution. First, it doesn't take a degree in clinical psychology to know that kind of behavior will see to a relationship withering up and dying in no time at all. Second, no level-headed, self-respecting girl would remain in a relationship once her lover announced they were going to love her less and become distant. Third, you thought that I of all people would go along w/ this and settle for less? I've never settled for anything in my life, and I'm not going to begin making exceptions now.

No, I don't accept any of these half-assed terms. Either you come back to me correctly or we say our good-byes. From my end, I still want you in my life, I still want to love you to the fullest of my capability, I still want to struggle against our differences. Quit trying to bait me to give up on us w/ your pathetic little appeals to my agency while neglecting your own. If you want us to end so badly then muster the courage to confront me forthrightly; take ownership of your actions no matter the consequence. Short of this, if you continue to insist that I'm so terrible for you and play these moody little games of yours, then I will take bait, toss it aside, and make the decision for you: I will call the shot and put an end to everything. Time and time again you've demonstrated to me that you're immature and incapable when it comes to matters of the heart. Either prove me wrong or let this be the last time.

[end transmission]

Because the whole world before you is like a speck that tips the scales,

and like a drop of morning dew that falls on the ground.

But you are merciful to all, for you can do all things,

and you overlook people’s sins, so that they may repent.

For you love all things that exist,

and detest none of the things that you have made,

for you would not have made anything if you had hated it.

How would anything have endured if you had not willed it?

Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved?

You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.

For your immortal spirit is in all things.

The Book of Wisdom 11:22-12:1.  50 BC.

[begin transmission]

Well, you were well ahead of the curve on this one, Professor.
Who would've thought that AI-generated art would've gotten this effective, this popular, this fast? It's absolutely crazy.
What's the humanist response to all of this, given that art was considered something unique to humanity?
Thank you so very much for these pieces; they are beautiful and I'm humbled to know that you had me in your thoughts.

Semper fortis!

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

Once again I find myself in awe at the serendipitous convergence of thought from two entirely different domains. In one interpretation, I could dismiss it as mere coincidence. Given how frequently/obsessively I muse on these types of matters, how deeply I try to analyze whatever it is I read or watch, it isn't absurd to say that there is a fair chance this type of coincidence may occur. On the other hand, given that might be the case, the odds of these specific subjects (as opposed to any other idea that exists in the infinite universe of the abstract) aligning so perfectly and in such a timely fashion are exceedingly low. It is too difficult to hand waive as pure happenstance. Recently I'd been binging on the 2006 cyberpunk anime Ergo Proxy and, suffice to say, it had left a lasting impression on me. There are...SO many interesting themes and Deleuzean lines of flight to explore in the series, but the one that piqued my interest was that of the nature of theologic love. These ideas gave wonderful contrast, and thus perspective, to the daily Catholic readings for September 11th 2022: Exodus 32:7-11, 13-14 and Luke 15:1-32. What do these Biblical parables expound upon? Surprise, surprise: the nature of theologic love. How on the Moon does it all connect? I will tell you~

Pino's Playful Pranks in Pretend Peaceful Paradise

Now, there are several episodes that are supremely thought-provoking of Ergo Proxy's 23-episode run. The one that served as the impetus for thought is episode 19: The Girl with a Smile. As I have spoken to some length w/ a dearest friend of mine, there is much to adore in this episode. The cultural references, the self-references, the breaking of the fourth wall, the dramatic tonal shifts, and especially the philosophy behind the episode all deserve some amount of consideration. For the sake of brevity we'll skip over most of those items, but it is on that last point, the philosophy, we should take great care to discuss for it's of immediate concern to understand its implications and consequently a transition into a better informed appreciation of the Biblical parables. Though...I'd be remiss to not gush momentarily over the heroine of this episode, the Autoreiv (see: cyborg) that goes by Pino (I'm a bit late to the party, but I've only now realized this is a reference to 'Pinocchio'). I swear, she is the most authentically adorable character I've seen in some time. I love that little Autoreiv; I have adopted her as my own, she is my daughter, and that's that.

Anyway, in episode 19 Pino finds herself in Smile Land, a post-apocalyptic shelter city modeled after an amusement park. Although he never appears in person and is portrayed only through film reels, the city is governed by its creator, the cartoonist Will B. Good. It's quite obvious in this episode that Smile Land, its cartoon inhabitants, and Will B. Good are all references to Disneyland, the Disney canon, and Walt Disney himself. This will be important to recall here in a bit, so please keep it in mind. As the episode develops, Pino's mischievous adventures see her disrupting operations-as-usual on Smile Land's teacup attraction. In the midst of her causing all sorts of trouble for park security, Pino cannot help but smile and laugh at the fun of it all. This, in turn, causes the inhabitants of Smile Land to take notice, marvel, and remark at how authentic her smile is, going so far as to comment that they've never witnessed such a genuine sight before.

Hyperreality and Simulacra

Smile Land being a reference to Disney and the subject of authenticity led me to recall work of the postmodern thinker (I don't care if he doesn't think he is, HE IS) Jean Baudrillard. One of the central ideas in Baudrillard's work is that of hyperreality. The best way that I could illustrate the idea is to ask you to think of any fruit-flavored candy or soft drink. Take Twizzlers strawberry licorice, for example. This particular confectionary is supposed to taste like strawberry, and, indeed, when we consume it we form that association to strawberry within our minds. However, you know damn well that actual, grown-from-the-Earth strawberries do not taste the same. The strawberry flavor of Twizzlers is artificial, an imitation, a fake, a simulacrum. Moreover, that fake strawberry flavor is so incredibly overwhelming that, were you to eat an actual strawberry shortly afterwards, you probably could not detect the sweetness nor appreciate the 'strawberriness' of the genuine article. Well, take that example and extrapolate it to reality, and there you have hyperreality. In more encompassing terms, reality, thanks in part to late-stage capitalism, is chock-full of things and people that are simulacra of other things and people. A readily graspable and concrete example would be that of artificial flavors we've just discussed. A mid-level example would be the perceived prestige and wealth that comes with ownership of an Apple product, despite one being a broke college student. A deeper example would be the pseudo-religious precepts of critical theories (gender, feminist, race, whatever flavor of 'woke' you want) rendering traditional religious metaphysics apparently obsolete. In all cases, there is a signifier (a word or representation) that points to the signified/referent (the concept or object), but the signifier is so removed and so corrupted and/or amplified from the signified that they  both could hardly be considered to inhabit the same conceptual milieu. Yet, b/c of our postmodern condition, psychologically we assume that false association.

To further ground the notion of hyperreality, let's turn to Disneyland itself. Now, obviously, Disneyland is an actual, real place that exists in Anaheim, California, USA. It is a physical location you can visit, fully aware that it is an ordinary place where people work day-in and day-out to make a living, people still have to obey laws, and garbage still rots w/ time. However, when you set foot in the park these is a certain momentary suspension of...let's say normal perspective and expectation. There are the typical fantastical attractions such as Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin that are far too extravagant that would never hearken to real life, but more strikingly there are seemingly 'normal' attractions that are fictitious but somehow feel more 'real' than the actual thing. There is New Orleans Square, constructed to serve as an imitation of the French Quarters found in New Orleans, Louisiana. There you can get your fill of gumbo, enjoy some street-side jazz/swing music played by resident, friendly, and gentlemanly Negro instrumentalists, or take a spooky, heart-thumping tour through a haunted colonial mansion. Now, the actual French Quarters in New Orleans have probably offered these experiences at one time or another, but it has doubtlessly evolved over time and perhaps there are some really nice people that inhabit it (personal note: the place is a dump), but it is a far-cry from the immaculate, idealized, perfect representation found in Disneyland. Those truly in-the-know w/ Creole tradition know that yaka mein is the soup of choice, not gumbo. You may find some street musicians in New Orleans, but they're not going to be playing gypsy jazz a la Django Reinhardt nor are they guaranteed to be all smiles or particularly ingratiating. The colonial mansions you can visit may not be as haunted or exciting as those from your Disneyland trip. See, on one hand, you have this location in New Orleans that is an actual physical place, part of an actual history, but feels less real compared to an actual physical place that feels more real, but is meant to be emblematic of the former and has no meaningful connection to its history.

Let's come back to Ergo Proxy; the through line from Smile Land to Disneyland to hyperreality should become manifest. Smile Land is a simulacrum of some conceptualization of utopia. It is a place where everyone smiles, is in a perpetual state of bliss, agnostic of suffering and hardship. According to Will B. Good, the creator of the city, they are happy. However, upon inspection through an existential lens, one could readily conclude that this is no happiness in the truest sense. One of the things that makes a life happy is when it is punctuated with hardship that is overcome. Consider a particularly beautiful song you might be fond of. If each instrument constantly played tones, there would be no song to speak of, but a cacophony of uninterrupted sound. What gives the song structure, meaning, and beauty is the judicious application of well-timed pauses and breaks, lending rise to rhythm. I don't mean to dwell on this point for far too long, not in the least b/c it is not my main point and we've miles to go before we sleep, but I hope that it is strikingly apparent that Smile Land, along with the happiness of its inhabitants, are all false, w/ Will B. Good being a false God presiding over a false heaven, completing the set. They are simulacra of what they are meant to represent. All of this is masterfully communicated by the citizens' comments on a (adorably) pajama-clad Autoreiv's authentic smile and the portrayal of Will B. Good as a cartoonist. For what is a cartoonist but the God of the world and characters he creates?

No Gods, No Masters, Only Lies

"2B, you're six paragraphs in. Bring it home. Get to theologic love."
Yes, you're right. Let's get to it now, then.

What, exactly, does a false God entail? There are several religious admonitions that caution against worshipping such beings--and those ideas are terribly profound--but I'm more curious as to their nature at the present moment. What does it mean to be a false God? The question is hard to answer if one takes issue as I had for several years w/ the seemingly platitudinal Christian assertion that "God is good." or "God is love.", etc. A mental trick that has helped me immensely is to conceive of the higher, perfect ideal first then call it God. Once that is accomplished, it all falls into place and becomes more sensible: "Good is God.", "Love is God.". Returning to the original question, our task is rendered easy: a false God is a false Good, a false God is a false love. By definition, God is perfect, so a false God is by definition imperfect. Taking this, we can conclude that a false God is associated w/ imperfect representations of the higher, perfect ideals of goodness and love. This is what grants them their "falseness".

Pragmatically speaking, what are the consequences of practicing something of a false good or something of a false love? Well, borrowing from the scenario illustrated in Smile Land, practice of a false good leads you to believe that you are practicing the real deal, that you are actually doing good, so much that when the authentic thing comes along you're thoroughly perplexed by it, or maybe even outright hostile to it. We could all think back to our childhood and recollect a moment where we had some intense desire to partake in some activity, whether that be overindulging in play at the expense of homework or consuming an inordinate amount of sugar at once--some scenario like that. In the moment, to our childish understanding of the world, that play or that sugar was thought to be good b/c it was immediately pleasurable and gratifying. We thought that more of the same would be good for us and enable a happy life. Any adult that would intervene and tell you otherwise was met w/ cries and protest. The homework that they would command you to do instead, or the vegetables that they commanded you to eat were seen as decidedly not conducive to your own personally-ascribed good by your child self. However, as we've (hopefully) come to realize, it is the most difficult, perhaps at-the-moment unpleasant activities that we need to do in order to promote and contribute to our own good in the long-term. Doing your homework would help you practice what you learned in school, curing the knowledge into you mind so that you may one day, years later, easily and skillfully apply it, either to learn something more advanced or to resolve some real world issue. Eating your vegetables is conducive towards your health, preventative against several types of diseases that may plague you later in life. Admittedly, these are extremely easy and obvious examples to cite, and they lead to plain, old truisms. The more ambiguous and heart-wrenching examples may come from practicing false love. Consider the case of a subtly toxic relationship. Perhaps one is harboring deep resentment for the other in her heart, but does not want to shut her partner down hard to spare his feelings. She may chalk it up to her being overly critical and cynical, but it may just very well be the case that her partner is behaving in a way that is contemptuous. Confronting him about it would be an act towards the good, rather than keeping everything hidden away. In this case, it is not readily obvious to the lovers that what they are engaging in is wrong, that sparing feelings is practicing false love, and that it will affect them negatively in a very deep way later on.

Spoilers and Spoiled Children

Following the above more basic example but examining the scenario from the perspective of a caring adult, the practice of genuine love could be readily derived. An adult may prohibit a child from overindulging in play or sugar b/c he or she loves that child, and is interested in fostering their well-being. They may endure plenty of scorn in return for imposing strict and at-the-time perceived unreasonable demands, but these must be weathered for the child's sake. But what about false love? It's actually illustrated quite artfully in the series, although it will take the notice of some plot points only obliquely referenced to in order to catch it. So, fair notice, there are going to be some major spoilers ahead. As it turns out, the titular character of Ergo Proxy, much like Will B. Good of Smile Land, is the creator of his own city, Romdeau. Proxies are beings created by the original humans that fled Earth following the events of an ecological disaster that left the entire surface uninhabitable and in ruin. Proxies were meant to create and preside over these shelter, domed cities and maintain them so that their creators would have safe refuge once they returned. As part of this process, artificial humans were created in order to stimulate the ecological cycle within the cities and provide genetic diversity for the original humans to intermingle w/ upon their return. However, unexpectedly (or was it?) these artificial humans turned out to be sterile and unable to reproduce on their own, necessitating an artificial womb in order to maintain population stability. That artificial womb is only operable if the city's host Proxy is within the dome.

I'd like to take a moment here to dwell on this very point for a while. Here we have a being that, for all intents and purposes, is like a God to the artificial humans. He created them and takes care of them, even though they are so thoroughly fatally flawed. Ergo Proxy loves his creation despite how terrible they can be, how utterly dependent they are on him for survival, how impure they are in their very essence b/c of their ersatz nature, how those flaws run so deep that even their basic biological mechanisms for reproduction are entirely inoperable. By all indications these artificial humans are failures; the term 'fallen' would not be inaccurate to apply here. This is why, and this is conjecture on my part, there are so many scenes that depict Ergo Proxy shedding tears for no readily discernible cause. How terrible must it be to partially fail at one's life objective, one's own purpose (remember, Proxies were meant to set up and populate these cities for their real human masters), and still feel nothing but love for the failure...Honestly, I love the thought so much for its relatability and the accompanying, reoccurring image of a God in despair over his own creation is haunting.

Beautiful as it may be, the fact of its relatability undermines the very notion that this is authentic love. For the love that a human feels for another, the love that an artist feels for his art, the love that a cartoonist feels for his characters, the love a Proxy feels for his city and creation...no matter how intense, real, and genuine they may appear and feel, they are all imperfect representations--simulacra--of God's perfect love for us. "But 2B, you were just gushing about Ergo Proxy's love for his creation..." Yes, I was, but two things can be true at once. One can readily acknowledge that human-human love, artist-art love, Proxy-human love is flawed but still appreciate how moving and beautiful it can be. However, it must be kept in mind that it is still imitation and flawed nonetheless. In the case of Ergo Proxy, this is made clear as, spoilers once again, he eventually abandons Romdeau and desires to live among the population of another city as an ordinary citizen, effectively abdicating his duty towards his very own creation. How even more relatable is that, where it is the modern condition to abandon one's own telos in pursuit of their own egotistical desire? Moreover, to hammer home the message of imperfect love, it is revealed that Ergo Proxy actually seeks to exact revenge on the original humans and therefore has taken it upon himself to become an agent of death: he will kill off his creation to ensure that there is nothing left for the original humans when they return. His hatred towards his creators supersedes his love for his creation.

The Real Deal

At long last, we may now address the Bible readings mentioned in the outset. Starting w/ Exodus 32:7-11, 13-14:

The Lord said to Moses, “Go down at once! Your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have acted perversely; they have been quick to turn aside from the way that I commanded them; they have cast for themselves an image of a calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!’ ” The Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, how stiff-necked they are. Now let me alone so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, and of you I will make a great nation.”

But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ” And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.

I get the sentiment that this passage would be widely misconstrued by atheists/secularists as illustrating the fickle nature of God, lending doubt to believe His worthiness of such a title. How could a supposedly all-knowing, all-loving God be so wrathful and mercurial in his feelings? I think this sentiment is informed by a mistaken, reductionist, over-personification of God. In order to make sense of it all, the concept of God must be taken seriously. A being that is the ultimate and the absolute, is not constrained to the personal, or the domain of humanity. God is better conceptualized as reality itself, as all of the material, forceful, moral, abstract, personal, and impersonal entities in existence, along w/ the infinite permutations that they can be configured into. God is that entire totality. This personification of God business is meant to make the stories more relevant and relatable to a human mind, but are by no means a comprehensive, exhaustive characterization. Once this notion is accepted, the story here becomes a tad bit clearer. Here, God is not a person but a natural phenomenon playing out: if one worships false gods, as we have examined before, one will suffer some sort of negative consequence. This is an absolute. You can overindulge and drink all you'd like tonight, but tomorrow morning you will have a hangover. You can cheat on a test and perhaps get away w/ it, but eventually you will have to run up against that gap in knowledge when you're out in the real world. God, the universe, will always and w/o exception have his machinations play out.

However, remember that God is the totality of everything. Yes, he is the consequence that come w/ natural phenomena, but he is also the most perfect conception of all things good, this including all of the virtues. That is what wise Moses indicates in Exodus 13-14, about God swearing to the people of Israel that they will flourish. Recall, however, that first the people must worship God in order to flourish. What does it mean to worship God? Well, as we've established, God is virtue, so to worship God is to worship virtue. One that worships virtue over the false gods of immediate self-satisfaction and pleasure will reap a life of flourishing. The significance of Moses speaking up to God is meant to indicate that the human will does have influence in how God's processes play out, and that they can be either in your favor or not, depending on how you act.

The strangest thing to me is that it doesn't have to be this way. God could have very well set up the world so that His processes play out as they may, irrespective of how we act. A reality where we could truly do everything perfectly right and still have misfortune fall upon us. And yet that doesn't happen. Why? Why is there an "out" of sorts for humanity, when it is obviously clear that we're a fallen creation? It could have as easily been the case that our flawed nature leads us to our own ruin and absolutely nothing could be done about it. It could have simply been left at that. The answer here is love. God has such a profound and genuine love for His creation that he's allowed us the chance to improve upon and rise above our fallen nature and circumstances. It didn't have to be that way but he's made it so.

What is the nature of God's love? It's elaborated on in Luke 15:1-32, in the form of three parables:

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisses and the scribes grumbles, saying "This man receives sinners and eats with them." So he told them t his parable: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have my sheep that was lost.' Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

“Or what woman, having ten silver coins,1 if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.

“But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.” ’ And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.

“Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’ ”

I do have to remark here, that these three parables are deeply...comforting. Care must be taken not to dwell on them for too long, especially the final one about the prodigal son, unless you wish to be moved to tears. In any case, the message here is that God's love for us is, by necessity, non-rational. I've often said that my love is akin to that of a father's love: it is conditional, requiring a child to fulfill a number of conditions in order to earn his pride and affection. Contrast this to a mother's love, which is commonly unconditional; she will always love you simply by virtue that you are her child, no additional conditions necessary to fulfill. Both of these are represented in a relationship w/ God. On one hand you have God who loves you so much that you ALWAYS have an out w/ him. You could be a serial killer and still not be beyond His love; he will still keep the promise to you implied in Exodus 13-14. You still have a shot at virtue and thus flourishing, that will NEVER be taken away from you. I think that this is very poorly misunderstood in the modern era, as love is always seen as a rational, tit-for-tat transaction, and so it must be the same for God. What probably popularized the idea is the consideration of the complementary fatherly love. This comes into effect once one decides to comport themselves w/ virtue. To comport yourself to virtue entails submitting yourself to some fairly harsh judgment against a perfect standard--resulting in you needing to fulfill a number of conditions. The idea is something like "If I do X good thing, I will earn more favor w/ God.". While it is true that God wants you to pursue virtue and will judge you quite harshly as you practice it, it doesn't mean that he loves you any less when you fail to embody it, or loves you more when you do. The love is already there, it is given and fulfilled via the prospect of practicing virtue to begin w/.

The successful practice of virtue is you indulging in what God already had wanted for you and give to you. It is you, the prodigal son, making the conscious decision to stop your reckless life, coming back to your father after suffering the world and your own foolishness, and reaping the benefits of what was already yours. It is you, the prodigal son, being adorned w/ the finest robes and rings on your hand. Like the woman turning her house upside down just to recover a single silver coin of small denomination, or the shepherd that searches for that one lost sheep out of a hundred, God would never turn His back on you and deny you the chance to live a happy life through virtue. Anyone that can't see just how miraculous this is must be incredibly blind. Ten minutes out in the world or even just ten minutes spent alone w/ yourself in the quiet would reveal just how nasty man can be. Not just that, but some may even take pride and delight in how ugly and wicked they can be...suffice to say, if justice does exist in the world, we surely do not deserve any kind of love whatsoever. But where justice does not apply, and we receive love and forgiveness despite our wretched nature, mercy takes over. That is what is meant when it is said that God's love is merciful; it is given to his creation freely and willingly, even though they do not deserve it and it doesn't make rational sense to give it.

TL;DR

These kinds of posts never seem to come to a tidy resolution, as they serve as a first stab in clarifying and organizing my thoughts. As a consequence, a lot of it comes off as meandering and exploratory, with no shortage of tangents being entertained, adding to what is an already rhizomatic mess. In truth, often times these posts beget even more questions and lines of flight, inspiring even more uncertainty rather than closure. But I hope that a few takeaways became clear in my exposition on charming little Autoreivs, hyperreality, Disneyland, false gods, and virtue. I'll offer up a few bullet points in summary for convenience:

• God's love is perfect, genuine, and unconditional, according to Exodus 32 and Luke 15.
• This love is offered up to mankind by the opportunity of choice to practice virtue, leading to a happy life.
• One of Ergo Proxy's themes is that of imperfect creations and imperfect gods, and their fallen natures.
• This theme is illustrated most clearly in episode 19, through Baudrillard's concept of hyperreality.
• The character, Ergo Proxy embodies imperfect love and serves as a neat little foil to God and His perfect love.

So, there you have it.

[end transmission]

 

[begin transmission]

Finally, after ~2.75 years, you've managed to catch COVID.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

This all so very tiresome, and it's wearing on my patience.

My argument is a simple one:

01.) Love of man is required for romantic love.
02.) You do not possess love of man.
03.) Therefore what you feel for me is not romantic love.

Premise 01, as I have already discussed w/ you is an idea attributable to Aristotle, and an idea that I agree w/ and makes sense to me. That being said, you're free to disagree w/ it, but keep in mind that it is my judgment of your feelings towards me in question here, and that judgment is informed by this premise. If you'd like to change my mind about it, you'd effectively have to come up w/ your own notion of romantic love and convince me to adopt it while abandoning this one. So far, you haven't done that.

Premise 02 is the greatest point of contention, but I have already made a lengthy case for it. In summary, it is your own self-admitted duplicitousness in your own friendships w/ the others, your own self-admitted inclination to act cold towards others, your own self-admitted superficial, 'clinical kindness', the fact that you see no value in harboring any IRL friendships, the fact that you see no value in marriage if it isn't w/ me, the fact that you see no value in having children yourself someday are strong indicators that you lack the love of man.

If someone were to take every pain to avoid picking up a ball or a bat, to avoid watching a game on television or read stats of players online, you'd be hard-pressed to say that person was a fan of baseball. It doesn't matter if they profess the contrary; it really is as simple as that.

This isn't necessarily the tiresome part. I think that notions of love, particularly that of romantic love, can be complex, difficult, and thoroughly confusing. Accordingly, I don't expect either one of us to come up w/ conclusive resolutions on the matter. It can very well be something we disagree on and continue to work out. No, the tiresome part is YOUR attitude in approaching this problem. For as sterilely and formally as I have presented the matter up until this point, you know damn well that I had been much more careful, patient, and compassionate the first time around when I broached the subject.

I took great care to not invalidate your feelings. I'm not debasing your feelings when I say this, and I know you feel a lot of something for me, but I think it's something like love. Not exactly it. I made sure that I wasn't coming from a place of superiority. Well...no. My love is just as faulty as yours. I even specifically mentioned my intention and partially pleaded out of emotion, because up until that point it had been a wonderful night. No...▒▒▒▒▒▒▒, don't be mad. I didn't mean to make you mad! This, all occurring while you took the most uncharitable interpretations of my words, trying to make it seem as if I wanted you to feel romantic love for everyone, comparing me to hippies and Alice2, and catastrophizing w/ the conclusion that you are absolutely incapable of love.

It is this behavior that makes me irritated. To top it all off, you then had the gall to try and dismiss me outright, citing past instances where I, in good faith, admitted that I was wrong. As if a handful of instances of being wrong doomed me to a lifetime of forever being wrong on everything henceforth. It was such a cheap and childish ploy that I couldn't believe you were trying to make a case off of it. That is not acceptable. If you continue to invalidate my arguments right out of hand like that, if you abuse my good will and honesty in that manner, then we're through.

It is that, and the behavior that came to follow that is probably the most egregious: your insistence that somehow my bringing this doubt of your love to your attention was a form of mistreatment. I'm sorry, but no; I will not allow you to gaslight me on this. I acknowledge that what I said was uncomfortable, I'm not blind to that fact, but it doesn't mean that I was deliberately trying to harm you or put you down. I told you what I honestly thought; just b/c I hadn't said anything about it before does not mean I hadn't been thinking about it. I'd hope that my care and consideration came through in my words, but perhaps they hadn't. In either case, you should re-read our initial conversation--you now being free of anger and sleep-deprivation--and compare its tone to this post. The contrast should be apparent.

If you insist that I was mistreating you...wearily, I ask that you present your case. At my request of this the other night, you refused. I think you know that you don't have much of a case, and I think that this is all a sorry excuse to try and shift focus onto me and away from you. You commented that I have many issues to work out, that I need help. I agree. I do have my flaws, and perhaps I could use some help. However, we're not talking about me here. This is about you. If you'd like, we can work on me after, but right now we're dealing w/ you.

Unless you truly meant what you said and that you've given up on trying to love. If that is the case, then I will be on my merry way and you can be the loner that you've always romanticized yourself to be. You don't need me there, lying to you, pretending as if your behavior is alright and that everything will be okay. For one, that is not in alignment w/ the good, and two, I haven't the heart to see how that kind of life plays out.

[end transmission]