Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently asked questions (which do matter)
- Are you for real?
- Yes. –P.
- What proof can you give?
- You are assuming that we care whether you believe us or not. If you don't, it makes no difference to us. If you do believe it, the next obvious question is, what will you do about it? Our existence is, I believe, well documented and well established. Is it beyond conjecture? Conjecture away if you will. No being which has ever been seen in this plexiverse is a greater and more virtuostic liar than humanity. Especially to itself. Ecce homo fatuus. –P.
- Will I be saved?
- Nope. –W.
- How do I know you are not just a function of fate?
Fate pretty much exists in theory 'now.' In practice it's a free-for-all. Free will, that is. –F.
'Fate' is a concept, as I said above, that predates Christianity. It hardly can be found in the Bible (well, I've never noticed it). The best early example of time as an engine of fate can be found in the plays of the ancient Greek dramatists. I submit, as my brother does above, that the concept of 'free will,' as extrapolated across the entirety of any given reality, renders the concept of fate meaningless. For the moment. –P.
- Fate's like hindsight backwards 'cause both 're 20/20. No wonder it ain't popular. –W.
- So is it your position that fate is the actual moving principle of creation, and free will the illusion so many thinkers have said it is?
- Recall Francis' essay regarding connections. I'll let him take it from here. –P.
Well, thanks, bro.' It's like this. Read Hesiod's description of Creation in his Theogony (c. 760 B.C.E.), which isn't all that much different from the one in Genesis. The initial entity in the very beginning was the Chasm. Out of it came avatars of order (Earth), disorder (Eros) and a buffer between (Tartarus). A later coupling between Heaven (born of and consort to Earth; some family tree!) and Earth brought forth the Fates and a lot of other stuff. Free will never even registered. It was again a much later product of another civilization entirely.
I guess I mean to say here that fate is viewed by the ancients to be a much more sophisticated idea than would now seem, and free will its rejoinder from a different period and point of view. The most basic moving conflict is disorder against order, like Dave said in his opening statement. Fate is a subset of order, as free will is a subset of disorder. They aren't opposites any more than good and evil are! We don’t know what the Creator intended. We assume fate was His endgame, and free will a test for humankind to pass or fail. We may seem like we're pushing free will in order to upend fate here, but the beam we're trying to tip over is a much older one. If you’re a 'free will' advocate, I wouldn't root for us. Any advantage we might afford you's a very short-term one. –F.
- When you go off about physics and all that, why don't you use any equations?
From our point of view, I guess, we don't need them/ we see from the macrocosm – our frame of ref - to the microcosm/ maybe, to see from micro to macro, or to extrapolate/ you need to use math to describe it/ --D.
An' also, some people who read this might not be so hot at math. An' it's really important that ya unnerstan' all this. Not that ya will. –W.
- What about Ockham's Razor? Doesn't that apply at all?
Well, I always thought Ockham's Razor ('entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,' or 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity') applied to reality/ yours!/ the same way Newton's laws of dynamics applied to physics/ in many if not all occasions and frames of ref/ no, sorry, Ockham's Razor only works in certain situations/ if you want, you could say William of Ockham was an optimist/ like the Murphy who came up with Murphy's Law/ --D.
Which ain't in our Laws section, ya know. –W.
If one might interject, isn't it diverting to note William of Ockham's phrasing? 'Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity'? Was the Catholic Church aware, or still aware, of the hyperstructure's existence after the diversion of theWestrn and the Eastern Churches? Was Father William not just making a purely logical point based on the previous thoughts of Aristotle and Maimonides, but also attempting to reverse the explosion of parallel worlds with the only weapon he had; a Franciscan pulpit and a massive captive audience? Interesting... --P.
Wasn't like he was trying to stop the creation of zombies, Petey; he already had plenty. –F.
- Did you actually sit at a computer keyboard and write all this stuff?
- No, we dictate. –F.
- Who do you dictate to?
- We don't know her/his name, and it's just as well. Sometimes we talk or think in a particular spatial direction and we can hear him/her listening. You would be surprised how loud the plexiverse is on occasion. And at other times, how deathly silent. Everything makes a sound, however small. If he knows what's good for him (or her, for all we know) he/she writes it down as we say it, verbatim. –P.
- How do you communicate with him? or her?
Don't really 'get' the connection we have with this person. Petey calls it 'the Muse's speaking tube' but I wonder if it isn't true that inspiration or creativity is just an ability to be impressed on by other realities you yourself aren't in, in such a way that it alters the direction of one's own subconscious or unconscious mind. What you think you are creating is really an impression of a parallel reality you have no other exposure to than via your imagination. And in talking to this individual – no, we usually can't hear them, and they sure don't talk to us – we're 'piggybacking' on that propensity of those human beings in much the same way we use the wormholes between places of worship that prayers use to get around. –F.
Some may cavil at this, saying it makes all imagination akin to a dirty window into another frame of reference or membrane; all inspiration devalued to a kind of unsource-able journalism. But how is that different from one's creation or appreciation of any art? Does anyone surveying or experiencing any artistic expression by someone else ever quite 'connect' with the exact series of thoughts the artist had in creating the art in question? Not that this is art, in any manner. Just an example. --P.
- How can the Antichrist be thwarted or killed, as Death put it, and yet it is not possible for the Last Days to be delayed?
Let's not forget/ logic is a human invention/ it isn't the only influence on this island creation/ if an Antichrist is neutralized before he/she has a chance to bring on and conduct their part in the Tribulations/ then obviously they were not the Antichrist/the Last Day is a fixed day in the life of the plexiverse/ your collective 'ids are slowing the passage of time in some areas/ in others you are accelerating it, naturally/ but it isn't going anywhere/ come on, Willie, say it/ you know you want to/ --D.
Thanks bro'. The Last Day ain't goin' anywhere. You are. –W.
- What is an 'island creation'?
- Roughly the same as a 'plexiverse'/ well, the plexiverse/ since there's only evidence of one/ in other words, the unobservable entirety of creation, exactly as it is/ –D.
- Who is it that calls Jesus 'the Yoizel'?
Oh, yeah, almost forgot this. 'Yoizel' is a Yiddish term used in Eastern Europe before the mid-20th century (and elsewhere more sparingly later) which when translated roughly means, "The Messiah? Maybe not." --F.
Recall George Steiner's "A Conversation Piece" in which one rabbi puts forth, "The Nazarene was not the Messiah. Only a man. Mad, perhaps." But so are you all... Christian or Gentile, Jew or Greek, polyglot or barbarian. Therefore was not G-d true to His advertising when he sent you a man like yourselves? --P.
- Why are your 'truths' more valid than ours?
- We exist on a 'plane' closer to the Divine Triad/ or whatever Petey's calling it today/ than you do/ so as we move between your microcosms and the macrocosm/ between your dscreet realities and the Continuum/ something you can't do/ not that I know of, anyway/ we've noticed that some things vary less from situation to situation than others do/ and those are the truths to which we're referring/ naturally since we do not have direct access to the Throne we do not have a line to the absolutes/ well, the absolute absolutes/ instead of the relative absolutes mentioned in our Laws section earlier on here/ which is the best we can do/ but we have seen these 'truths' apply in far more situations than the ones to which you subscribe do/ that's really all/ --D.
- There seems to be some disagreement about how Pestilence says 'it will all end' and how Death says.
Ain't really spent much time lookin' at either one of 'em, but if so it never hurts t' have a backup plan. Don' bother askin' which is which. –W.
If there is a disparity it's a very surface-oriented disparity. Nothing to worry about! --P.
Funny, I never saw a difference/ could be me waxin' poetic/ or Petey waxin' hyperbolic/ or your own wishful thinking/ -D.
- Prove to me you're who you say you are.
- Thought we just dealt with this/ is there a journalist in the room?/ Writing these questions?/ They pull this all the time, ask it one way, then another, so that they can finally get the answer they want/ we tried a press conference once/ never again/oh wait, I haven't replied yet/ how's this/ look up Mathew 12:39/ now how can I improve on that?/ --D.
- Do you have it in for Christianity as opposed to Judaism or Islam or any other religions?
Only in that most of our opponents and victims, if nowhere near all, seem to have been Christians early on in our recallable career. Before that we don't know, and later on we've gone where we felt so inclined to go. As to those five centuries and change (90- c. 590 C.E.) in which we have no idea what we were doing: for all we know, the Creator set us against the pagans and their deities in an attempt to bring the Western world under Christian sway. A little voice told me something like this, recently. Well, as you understand time it was recently. It was actually a very old voice. No idea where it is or was from. Yet. Another time for that exposition, I think!If the above guess is correct, somehow I doubt we were all that cooperative. The Four Horsemen were never and never shall be a weapon anyone can aim. Consider how the Roman Empire, Christian though it later became, fell anyway. If the above is at all accurate, I believe it can be demonstrated that it was we, not the American Central Intelligence Agency, that invented 'blowback.' –P.
- In a way, are your efforts as described here an attempt to re-position 'free will' and vitiate 'fate' again, despite the Creator's alleged efforts to the contrary?
This was asked already, I thought. 'Free will' could be considered the basis of us if you had to, but it's an unnecessary complication. I saw a building once, I don’t remember where, probably in Europe, and its inscription was 'Fais ce que voudras.' Or, ‘Do what you wish.’ Reminded me of Aleister Crowley's famous line, "'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law." Beats the heck out of Aeschylus!
Think of 'free will' as an atmosphere, the one we became aware in. Fate is like mustard gas to us. Wait, there's later stuff, now, isn't there? Yeah, 'nerve gas.' That's better. –F.
- How can there possibly be quintillions of me? maybe septillions? maybe more?
You'll have to answer for yourself. –F.
We're not touchin' that one. –W.
- Given the time in which the prophet Mohammed lived (570-632 C.E.), after the closing of the Academy in Athens and after the Neo-Platonists made their mark on the X-iverse, were there uncounted and uncountable copies of him?
There were not/ in fact, it's interesting how Muhammad only ever existed in one reality/ that we've seen/ not sure if that was the original one/ the same one Jesus of Nazareth and Abraham and John the Baptist, etc..., were in/ certainly could have been/ would have made sense, wouldn't it? –D.
- Are you four terrorists?
- No. Terrorists have political underpinnings to what they do. We really have no exact understanding of why we were set in motion. Petey's got ideas, but don't ask him. Maybe inertia has its spiritual side. And don't ask us if it bothers us that we don't know why we do this. Remember The Horsemen's Next Law. –F.
- Why did Justinian Imperator really close the Academy in Athens in 529 C.E.?
One more time! As a Christian (again, marginally), he was coerced by his local bishops, who felt that the Neoplatonism being pushed by the philosophers in residence at that time was a heresy. One also wonders, though, if possibly he saw something or experienced something (or his bishops did) which forced his or their hand(s).
Actually, you know, this brings up an interesting turnaround in the history of the West. When Justinian several years later sent an army West to retake the western Roman Empire from the 'barbarians,' the army razed and tore down everything in its path, closing universities and houses of study right and left. So who is really responsible for the oncoming of the Dark Ages? The 'barbarians' of the 5th century who were fleeing Attila and the Huns and attempting to find sanctuary within the Empire (and who were Arian Christians, yet another heresy to the Roman Church)? Or was it Justinian Augustus whose equally barbaric (if not more so) generals destroyed the majority of what was left of ancient Western culture and knowledge (save those which the Christian clerics were able to preserve, of course)? And as an extension to this query, given how the monks of the great mediaeval monasteries copied the manuscripts they were given over and over, is Christianity really to be credited for the preservation of ancient knowledge or are they responsible for one of the greatest, most ruthless editing jobs ever undertaken? Whatever became of all those manuscripts they weren't given to copy and preserve? (The early middle 6th century C.E. did boast some rather long, cold winters, incidentally; very convenient!) Yes, quite a bit of 'seditious' or 'heretic' material got in under the door, but again, what of what was lost? Why did Julian 'the Apostate''s essay "Against the Galileans" only survive in shredded form? So that certain early Church fathers could more easily attack it? Did the bits they didn't preserve ask questions not answerable? (Not that they mattered...) And so on. Food for thought... ---P.
- You four are so completely full of it.
I don't know that this qualifies as a question. –F.
You see your existence from the inside out/ we see it from the outside in/ of course we disagree/ can I stop repeating myself now? –D.
- Why is the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum theory still so popular when it admits to being a model instead of something fully applicable to the universe?
Petey, this one's all yours. –F.
Easy enough. If you are a physicist and you take Dr. Hugh Everett's model as your own, that implies that there are septillions or octillions of you out there. What if one of them is smarter than you are, and, let's say, arrives at the Theory of Everything before Dr. Hawking does? Or before you do. A completely unacceptable situation. To a scientist. But we all know how competitive they are. Driven by ego, you know. Maybe it is a disease... –P.
- What is this concept that you've mentioned called 'The Wait'?
A certain amount of absolute Time has been set aside, right, to allow the End Times to happen. Speaking about human-visible time, now... during this period since 70 C.E. when the Romans demolished Herod's Temple, some things have come up that we figure weren't intended to. One example: we've become conscious and started figuring out how to use our ability to think. This period's what we more or less call The Wait. This concept only makes sense if you experience time the way humankind does.
Another side effect of The Wait: to you it seems, (unless you're one of those evangelicals) that G-d no longer speaks to man. This isn’t true – His voice is always in your ears, his footprint always before yours in the sand and in the street – but you have (either by design or by the decay of your senses; you pick) stopped hearing Him. Is this like, as Petey said a while back about something else, how if you smell a flower too long, your brain turns off your nose? In the end, I believe The Wait is one of those concepts that isn't exactly definable. It means something a little different to each of us. –F.
I think it means Somebody Wait-ed/ too long –D.
Huh! What he said. Close enough. –W.
Funny thought, there. Why don't you humankind hear G-d's voice any longer? Are the Jewish mystics correct when they say that G-d no longer speaks to humans because the Kohain high priests who perished on Roman swords during the sack of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. all took the correct pronunciation of G-d's name with them? Is it the possible blunting over human time of the human genome that has rendered you deaf to certain meta-frequencies? (Thanks to J.G. Ballard for coming up with that first.)
And then, this Wait thing... what of the parable of the foolish virgins? Wasn't the Father listening when the Son told it? Oh, never mind. Another question with no answer, which means...
A bit more about this 'long silence': a psychologist named Julian Jaynes, back in the 20th century, put forth that possibly the left and right lobes of the human brain in ancient times (pre-Dark Ages, that is) were not as well interconnected as they are now, and as such, time lags in communication between them (or some kind of neural feedback) were thought of as the voices of gods. Don't know about that one; wouldn't better communication between the hemispheres make for less irrational human behavior overall? Haven't noticed that of late. And if this is true, what happened in the 600s or 700s C.E. that made men smarter all of a sudden? Or more stupid? –P.
- At one point Death said that 'speak of the Devil and he shall appear' had a similar accompanying adage regarding G-d. Why doesn't it work?
- Guess now that we've beat back th' atheists, it’s th' agnostics' turn, huh. Gee whiz. Aright, were you payin' attention when Petey said yer 7 senses don't work so hot? Of course you don't actually see G-d when you call on Him. But you can rest assured He's there. Tell ya right now, if He wasn't watchin' yer back, we'd of exterminated the human race by now. –W.
- What does Death mean when he says 'the Romans were barbarians too, they just dressed better'?
Let's not forget that the word barbarian' comes from the ancient Greek word 'barbaros'/ which meant 'anybody who isn't Greek'/ I don't know how much clearer the definition could be --D.
Hey, for all anybody knows, the Vandals came up with something as nifty as the Twelve Tables... maybe they just wrote them on something edible. –F.
Pardon me, Francis, that was my line. –P.
Not really, you said it about the Goths. –F.
Oh, yes, well, that mitigates your appropriation entirely... --P.
- Why does Pestilence talk funny?
In my 'time in the desert' I spent an inordinate amount of same (Francis has mentioned this) reading brains. My brothers were kind enough to bring them to me as their owners expired. The brains of great men and women are the sum total of what they never put in their books, their software, their philosophy, their science... as well as bits and pieces of what did get published. Often I wonder if writers do so to get their books out of their heads so that they can forget them. I read their brains all, cover to cover. So to speak. And there was too a smattering of unknown and unsung gray matter as well from this asylum or that hospital for the criminally insane. Really, who needed any more of human convention? I would gladly have looked anywhere in those days for a clue as to how I might prosecute my commission (given all my favorite medieval germs were for all intents dead). Considering how this was roughly between the 1760s and the 1940s, I came to assume in my ability to express myself all the bad habits of those more descriptory authors I "read." So to speak. Windy? Yes. Very. And my brothers will agree. What can I say, my mentors manqué were for the most part paid by the word.
Now and again I did come out of retirement... let's not forget the great flu epidemic of 1918-1919. One might say that that was done for the sake of nostalgia, though... --P.
- I don't understand how Pestilence can say the human senses are usually wrong and then Death can say later that most if not all of those historical persons who were called the Antichrist actually could have been.
The extension of those two statements from David and myself would be, I think, that what few times you have been right, it would have been better for the race as a whole if you'd been wrong. –P.
I answered a question like this already/ what are you, speed-reading?/ Don't know how much more I can say about it/ maybe here is where the phrase 'self-fulfilling prophecy' takes on/ an entirely new meaning. –D.
- Is the Bible literal truth?
- When it first appeared, the Bible (as arrived at by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 C.E.) was in and of itself a new spiritual technology/ a software-only-based religion/ a series of treatises regarding a monotheistic G-d who had no images of Self/ right?/ and then a delayed-action kill program in the end book/ pretty snazzy/ but as you know from dealing with Microsoft Windows and XP and Vista and 7 and so forth/ bugs tend to get left in/ problem is, the Councils of Carthage codified the New Testament/ just like the Old Testament was codified in the time of the Israelite Ezra (5th century B.C.E.)/ and what that did was, it froze those bugs and the little inaccuracies into the text for all time/ more were added in over hundreds of years in the early Middle Ages, of course/ all those monks who were going blind drawing fancy pictures by candlelight, trying to get Mary's nose right in the margin/ that didn't help/and nobody dared change them back/ certain Popes in those days would condemn you for anything/ get them the wrong lunch order, you went straight to the rack/ and then the 'bloody eagle' for 'afters' look, I don't want to get anybody in a lather about this/ the upcoming End of Days (if you even make it) should be taking up your attention/ not this minutiae/ hopefully I spelled that right/ let's just say that the Bible is true as far as it goes/ and as far as it can be, given how mankind did the transcribing from divine inspiration/ which makes sense, doesn't it/ unless you're perfect, which I seriously doubt/ --D.
- Who killed President Kennedy?
Lee Harvey Oswald. There was no conspiracy. Nobody helped him. And if you think there was one, why does America still exist? Why wasn't there a revolution like France saw in 1789? Reign of Terror and all? If you're all still so convinced that this movie-star President, this Great Man, was murdered by the CIA or whatever, why wasn't there a guillotine on the Mall in Washington, D.C. and baskets full of heads on every street corner in 1963? Think about that. There's still time. –F.
And given so many believe in a conspiracy... who knows? Maybe now there was one then. But none will ever know who was responsible now. Not even those who were involved. What mortals these fools be... --P.
- Was Jesus real?
- Yes. –P.
- Was he divine?
- Yes. –P.
- How do you know?
Among many other reasons, because he was the only person we have ever tried to take out that we failed to. –P.
Uh huh. If ya can give us th' slip, yer good. –W.
More like divine! –F.
- Why do you almost never talk about America?
- Because in the long run it doesn't matter. How many empires do you think we've seen rise and collapse in fifteen hundred years? They're like May flies, and you notice we don't talk about them much either. 'Nuff said. –F.
- What will happen to you four if the plexiverse shatters as Pestilence described in his last essay?
- Exactly th' same thing that'll happen to you. But fer some reason we never developed much a' a survival instinct. So we're OK with it. –W.
- In 'Read this first' Pestilence says that all seven human senses are 'accomplished liars.' was this always the case?
Certainy not! Sense organs that veil your information input to the immediate situation (especially when the situation includes your ability to have heard and intercepted the dinothere chowing down on your late autumn vegetables) do your survival rate no favors. But it was not just I who has said that over the course of human time (as humanity has experienced it), the surroundings have altered dramatically while the human senses have not kept up. Certainly the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus' observation about how said senses cannot perceive the decay and growth of all things around one throws a suspicious light upon what else said senses miss. The philosopher also suggested that given you cannot trust your perceptions all the time, possibly you can't with any confidence trust them at any time! Truer observation now than it was when said, given how the dangers of your time no longer announce themselves as once they did. Thus, this web site. Or not.
But the old order of what sanity was considered to have been has not altered as much as it might have done either. Perhaps until your hardware and software catches up – if there is time for it to do so --it isn't so great an idea for humanity's reach to exceed its grasp. –P.
- You contradict yourselves more often here than I can count. How does that work?
Contradictions only exist because of the human inability to hold more than one thought in prominence at one time. David will elaborate. –P.
'anks, bro'/ as was said in the Laws section/ on Earth only the echoes of truth exist/ just as in Heaven all is true/ and in Hell all is false/ this is one of those instances in which Giordano Bruno, a Neo-Platonist/ comes off almost like a Gnostic/ doesn't he?/ given how he got very close to the above dictum about Earth and echoes/ the thing is, in a plexiverse where the only actual absolute is that there are no absolutes/ it is contradictory to have laws/ I agree with this/ but laws are made to be broken/ let me remind you/ and Frankie said earlier in his essay about connections/ that there are certain environments in which certain laws hold more sway than others/ but as we do not know what part of the human megaverse you are ‘calling from’/ we’re forced to put down all the laws we know of/ despite the fact that many of them may not be compatible with your area or one another/ I think this situation is indicative of how human influence and opinion can bend creation out of whack/ this way here, that way there/ recall what has been said about how the passage of time varies with the perception of the observer/ this is why in Singapore on any given day it's 2200 C.E./ as opposed to how in the jungles of Borneo there are tribesmen living as though Ur had not yet been built on the banks of the Euphrates/ --D.
Credit where credit's due, David, Mr. Ballard said that first. –P.
Him again! –F.
Oh, yeah/ you're right --D.
Just this once. –W.
To borrow yet another concept from Iamblichus of Chalcis, let's recall that every heavenly Personage (god, hero, devil, what have you) upon which a reality or frame of reference is based shall by all means have a varying opinion regarding the Form (or membrane, or reality) over which it theoretically holds influence. The closer one ventures to the divine Triad, however, if the tune drops that way for you, the more contradictions fall by the wayside and are assumed into Same. At the center, there are no contradictions because all are remanded to the heavenly viewpoint. Hell, on the other hand, being as far away from the 'Divine Triad' as one can get, therefore favors no law over any other and as such all are false. Just as well; I have no use for blast furnaces or medieval forms of persuasion. They can't be counted upon either. Better ones were invented 'long ago.'
Now, consider how all of you are different from one another. No doubt each of you has a contrasting view of your reality as opposed to any other person's of the same reality. Starting to get dizzy yet?
Since someone is bound to ask, no, the Hell referred to above is not the same Hell as one sees in, oh, I don't know, say, Pieter Breughel's Dulle Griet. To paraphrase Steve Winwood, Hell is in your mind. As much as Heaven is, on occasion. They are real, but they are also in your mind. It all depends. –P.
- Is that why you almost never talk about the devil here?
Knew this'd come up. Th' Old Imp is as real as yer eyebrows, plucked or no. If he's convinced ya he doesn't exist, wake up. Problem is, after 13 billion years, evil is something anybody can do. Maybe this was always true, I dunno. But no training is necessary! Unlike doin' the will a' G-d, say; you at least have t' have some familiarity with th' Qu'ran or th' Good Book or some such. So now, Hell ain't a lot different from th' average ancient bureaucracy (like th' Byzantine Empire in the 11th Century, maybe) that somehow er other holds itself t'gether more 'cause a' inertia than anything else. Th' glory days a' Mephistopheles an' Asmodeus are long, long gone. They all been kicked upstairs into Administration, probably. The current crop a' trainees 're pathetic. We've seen 'em. But his every snare is still out there, an' they all still work. Don't get cocky.
See, our thing is, you oppose th' one with th' power, th' one who holds all the cards. Satan matters to you a lot. To us, not as much. –W.
- With all your talk about piles of gall bladders, bags of eyes, etc..., can you do anything about the unbelievable shortage of human organs for transplanting?
You have got to be kidding. –P.
No, Petey, I don' think they are. Uh, well, let's jus' say that when we're through with most human bodies there ain't a lot you can do with 'em except bury 'em. Sorry. No, not really. –W.
If you're under siege in a walled city and there's nothing in the fridge, there is one other thing you can use 'em for. –F.
- Doesn't all this death and destruction get boring after a while?
No way! It's what we were s'posed t' do from th' beginning an' we unnerstand that so 'boredom' never comes into it. You gotta remember that when we 'woke up' about 1500 years an' change ago we saw pretty fast what our purpose was, 'n' we got right back to it. Actually, if 'sanity' means yer in touch with yer purpose in life, or 'metalife,' we're saner 'n' you are. I mean, d' you know what you're doin' here? Down t' the last detail? Why were you born, anaways? So maybe yer the crazy one. –W.
No news there. –F.
- Why does Death have all these ‘/’s’ in his entries here?
- It's my speech impediment/ maybe it's because I think in something approaching blank verse/ maybe because I talked first of us and never outgrew certain bad habits/ I've never had much time or inclination to think about this/ --D.
- Did you know anyone famous?
- Change that one t' 'did we kill anybody famous?' and the answer's yes. We don't have coffee an' crullers with 'em. We just return 'em to Sender. Well, there was Salvador Dali... but not now. –W.
- Does G-d exist?
- Yes. –F.
- What about the principle of the mathematically infinite regress? in other words, if G-d exists, who created G-d, and then who created G-d's creator, etc.?
Somebody's been reading Arthur C. Clarke. Or maybe David Berlinski. I mentioned this already, but to elaborate, I guess... Three answers.
- (1) This is a lot like saying "All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all men are Socrates." Existence is not a Woody Allen joke. Well, in some realities it is, but not yours. Not all the time.
- (2) It's hard to argue this point when we have all but seen G-d up close in the footprints and handprints He has left behind. He has impressed himself on the aether of this plexiverse. Seen from our frame of reference, we can't deny His existence any more than you, from yours, can prove or disprove it.
- (3) Remember, we're recent additions to this island creation. We weren't there to see the foundations laid. This is just something we know. Who created G-d? We never knew that, and even if there was an answer to that one, nobody would tell us! –F.
Wise men have opined that all things material and divine are subject to mathematical formulae, q.e.d. I just think that the mathematically infinite regress is not the correct formula to apply to G-d's existence. You Clarke fans are going to have to come up with a better one. You don't have all day. –P.
- Did you have anything to do with the Holocaust?
Nope. We didn't, an' we don't, discriminate. –W.
Let me add to William's fine crystallization of the point by reminding you of a line from Homer's Iliad (18.309): "The G-d of war is impartial; he kills also the killer." –P.
What he said. –W.
- Is it wise to base so much of your worldview on quantum theory, which after all is just one of a number of current theories?
Our ideas come from what we see, and do remember that our view of the plexiverse is completely unlike yours. But if you would point towards string theory, for example, recall that in a way string theory quantizes quantum theory. Doesn't it? In quantum theory, the particle is one of the few absolutes one can count on. String theory challenges even that absolute! Very neat, really. Walks right into our memory palace, doesn't it. And chaos theory fits in there someplace too, you know. Relativity? The Thorsgen variant? The Mandelbrot essential? There are places for them all. I prefer to access the theory that most agrees with that which we witness about us.
Human scientists may leave us behind in what they think is 'the dust' all they like. Given how quantum mechanics remains largely the base for condensed-matter physics, solid-state physics, computational chemistry, nuclear physics, there would seem still to be life in the old structure yet. –P.
- What is 'The Thorsgen Variant'?
Oh, dear me. –P.
You gonna answer 'em or am I gonna have to? –W.
Well... he hasn't been born yet. Any more than Augustus Bailter, Ph.D. But keep an eye out. –P.
- What are 'Clinch-effect MOSFETS'?
- Caught again! I mentioned this in an early essay, didn't I? They haven't been invented yet either. Will have to do some editing here. –P.
- How do you know G-d isn't female?
- We don't, tell ya th' truth. But it's hard fer even us t' argue with the male pronouns in the Bible an' the Qu’ran. –W.
- Is Christianity a valid religion?
- Yes. –F.
- What about Judaism?
- Again, yes. –F.
- What about Islam?
- Yes. We're not in the Qu'ran or the Haddith or any other text sacred to Islam, we'll admit that. But I've heard any number of angels we've eavesdropped on through the millennia refer to the Muslim book as 'the Holy Qu'ran', so again, yes. –F.
- What about Hinduism?
- One last time, yes. –F.
- What about Shintoism?
- Of course. –F.
- The Church of Latter-Day Saints?
- Yes! --F.
- What about Buddhism?
- Uh, is a pattern starting to emerge here? Yes. Like Dave says elsewhere, and Petey also, it takes a certain number of believers to make something true. Which is why Confucianism makes the cut (so you don't have to ask) and the Branch Davidians don't. In Heaven, of course, all religions are equally valid. Again, except for the Branch Davidians. Or Jim Jones. And a few others. Should be pretty obvious where the red line is. For your base assumption as to where that red line is, recall (or read) Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry. --F.
- Are there any drugs I can take to be able to see you?
Ya don't really want ta see us. Believe me. –W.
Over the last century there has been a lot of conjecture about 'ayahuasca' or LSD or ergot, that grain rot common in ancient times and the Middle Ages which it is supposed gave certain artists their surreal imaginations, or a lot of other recreational chemicals. Your mind has access to these visual and situational flux whether you take these drugs or not, you know. The drugs don't put anything in your heads themselves. Most of this phantasmagoria resides behind that locked door in the back of your mind, other bits are accessible by what I recall an alluring young Chinese doctor (whose name I forget) positing was 'a network of invisible nerves hanging out of all our heads in the fourth dimension or whatever.' Harvesting these images out of the aether? Why not. I believe she was a neuropsychologist. Must drop in on her again sometime. I suppose that to ingest the above items may make certain 'things' or 'POVs' easier to find or experience. Aim those 'nerve antennae' a bit more in certain hard-to-find directions, or crowbar that door open a smidge? If you like. But just consider that if you actually do see us... well, we will have no choice. I strongly suggest that you might consider waiting until we get around to you. There are far more things worth seeing, I can promise. –P.
- Death mentions 'human agents' in his treatise about the 'last days.' Have you four ever actually used human agents?
There are things we cannot do ourselves, and your fellow man or woman is a very useful tool. Sorry, no details. –P.
Eh, why not a few more? You'd be surprised how easy it is to direct a human agent. How do most of your villains throughout history control others? Threats of violence. From Lucius Cornelius Sulla to Henry VIII to Josef Stalin to Baby Doc Duvalier to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to whoever's next, that's what they all did. We have a far better method. We decimate a man or woman's character by giving them everything they want. Or seeming to do that. At that point they are like uncooked eggs; you can make of them anything you like. We've been employing this strategy since we could think. Almost never fails. Everyone has their price at which they will sell out enough of themselves to make them of use.
Of course, their natural drawbacks give them a very short shelf life. Not too hard to find another, though. –F.
Like I said about human Antichrists before/ human agents are not reliable/ too easy to get rid of them/ but sometimes we too have no choice/ are you interested?/ stay right where you are/ if we need you, we'll come looking for you/ -D.
- Why don't you have a blog here?
From what I've seen/ blogs comment on 'current events'/ which is a waste of time/ in seconds, they’re out of date/ well, as you experience time, they are/ –D.
Well, yeah. If you've been reading carefully here, and you ought to, it's been made pretty clear that what you see happening around you 'now' is a ripple in the streams of the fog of time and place that reverb in your vicinity. They're just the indirect refractions of the Panic of 1883 or Queen Anne's War, the sack of Troy, etc. And even the concept of 'you' is pretty foggy (after all, which 'you' are we really talking about?) As those ripples come and go, their effects do the same. Reread your Ecclesiastes and Lissner's First Law. Best I can say. –F.
- Are these millennial gurus who say the world will end on Tuesday or whatever all charlatans?
Many are, while many others could well have a piece of the puzzle that may be worth examining. I have personal favorites, but as we are akin to what Norman Spinrad once called 'agents of chaos' I think our aims are better pushed along by not highlighting some and slighting others. The collective human psyche should go where it will, and without too much outside influence on it. This web site notwithstanding!
The true prophets of any age, I have noted, are often thought of as liars or entertainers anyway (note Spinrad again, Philip K. Dick, Kobo Abe, Lenny Bruce, James Ellroy, William Gibson, Yukio Mishima, Abu Hamed ibn Muhammed Ghazali, Terence McKenna, Ballard, Thomas Pynchon, Ben Okri, Charles Stross, Andre Malraux, Robert Stone, Friedrich Nietzsche, Kurt Vonnegut, Hassan ibn Sabbah, Bruce Sterling, William Burroughs... and there are many more). Few if any are called prophets in their own time any more than they are thought of as prophets in their own country. In fact, I think the actual definition of the word 'prophet' should be 'one who makes predictions, and some of whose predictions have already come true.' So most prophets are only considered so once they're dead. Not altogether fair, but at any rate honest. As for their predictions, I'll only say that the future is oncoming and it will get here. Soon enough! Careful what you wish most for... to say nothing of whether others agree. --P.
- why didn't the world end on 12-21-2012, or last St. Liebowitz' Day, or whatever?
That would have been as good a day as any other! Couldn't really tell you. We're not too interested in making predictions, ourselves. We're keeping to our commission and awaiting the actual last day, however we can manage it. Besides, the Apocalypse is very deliberate. Certain things have to occur beforehand which haven't. We've mentioned this. I simply don't know that some 'deus ex etcetera' is going to swoop down and interrupt the parade.
But there's no reason why the 'timeline' might not speed up just as the clock starts running out.'Specially if Time is as flexible as we've said it is. And it is. Maybe the opening of the last 2 seals will only take about 45 minutes. And if so, how's about the trigger to race the meter being a certain number of people having read Revelations? Don't bother putting your Bible away, it's probably already too late.
Better still, the greater a hue and cry a certain minority made regarding 12-21-2012, the more people may have refused to believe it, causing a major tussle between 'will it?' and 'won’t it?' See Matthew 24:44, and Luke 12:40. How often does Rabbi Joshua bar-Joseph repeat himself in the Gospels? One other time, that I can think of. Try to find it. You won't be all that surprised. And it does directly relate to something very important that Petey mentioned earlier on. That window's still closing! And when is St. Liebowitz' Day, anyhow? –F.
The most pathetically deluded human, I believe (sub-species 'homo fatuus', again, or toquote Burroughs, 'homo sap') is he or she who believes that the world as it is will sail blithely on, only with better and better pastime entertainment, and better communications, as time advances. And forever at that. Given that it appears it can do no other to your eyes but spin forward! Ridiculous. Ballard, yes him again, had it in his 1960 short story "The Voices of Time" that just as any species can run its course, like indricotheres, if you will, so can an entire biological kingdom like that which is found upon Earth (which one? Yes, I know. Pick one for the sake of simplicity. How about yours?) have a fixed life span. There is no getting away from that. So the Last Day, once more, will have to arrive, and some time well before men have become unclothed inbred mental fleas hawking and spitting as they lope on their knuckles through the millenna-old ruins of your living room. Again, to paraphrase Mr. Ballard. After all, if the Son of Man is going to come in glory—in the one reality in which he originally appeared, let us recall – he will have to do so while humankind is still capable of looking up. That was an early propensity of humanity which, I think, caused a lot of this trouble to begin with.
Everything comes to an end. It's just a question of which end wins the foot race of Time.–P.
My brothers answered this question well enough/ but I wanted to add something/ see, we don't truly disagree with Dr. Terence McKenna or any of his descendants/ or ancestors/ although given your ability to fib to yourself/ I suspect we are approaching a point at which all your differing fibs fall away and the essence becomes obvious to everybody/ as we've said, too late for any of you to do anything about it/ and though 'the Son of Man coming in glory' is what is actually going to happen, all this other gloss could just be a way of saying something which may appear to some as an event that is a lot less specific/ until the roof that human society has built for itself falls in from the weight of the actual and the inevitable/ sort of like the very end of E. M. Forster's "The Machine Stops"/ we'll all experience "the opening of the sixth seal"/ that's not an issue/ but maybe it'll take a while for you to perceive it/ this doesn’t change much, though/ we'll still be back for you/ whatever direction you're looking in/ --D.
I guess if ya want, a whole lot of ya could decide t' believe that the world'll end on this day or that... in case ya really would prefer to short-circuit Judgment Day. But look at th' next question before too many of ya start down that road. –W.
- Is there a 'critical mass' of humanity possible that will make its collective will the law of creation, as opposed to G-d’s?
You better hope this ain't true. What if it's not the human Ubermind that tries t' succeed G-d, but the, uhh... what does Petey call it? The Untermind? Yeah, what if it's th' collective human Id that takes over? Trust me on that one. I'll be real busy. –W.
I have now and again referred to this hypothetical occurrence as The Usurpation. I doubt it will ever happen. Humanity is simply not well organized enough. In a very small fashion, though, this is already the case. Let me familiarize you with the concept of the 'kill order.' I believe it was introduced as a method of evening out the balance beam of the divine justice (as described by Ralph Waldo Emerson). Over millennia, we've noted a Hand turning our heads forcibly to take the measure of a particular person. Almost always it's someone roundly hated by a large enough number of their fellow men (and women, to be fair). If a certain number of persons want this man or woman dead (as you have read elsewhere, we have no idea how many, so figure it out yourself!), we appear to receive an automatic summon and that person is dispatched by us. This isn't our favorite pastime. We promote the random. What is less so than the kill order? But it exists, and there's no help for it. Yet. –P.
- Are you really brothers?
Of circumstance, let's say/ who else is like us, after all/ birthed directly of the Big Bang/ given form by a Deity who maybe sought an engine against His creations/ yeah, you know sometimes I think we're the divine id personified/ so He could have deniability/ --D.
Interesting! Haven't considered that one. But yes, we are brothers. Now we are. At some point we looked back, saw the exploded ur-black hole as a womb and decided it was so. –P.
Don't pity us because our mother gave birth to us and flung us away. 'She' did the same thing to you. –F.
And you know, perhaps we and you are distantly related! We have the same Father in Heaven. Ha! –P.
You just thought a' that now? –W.
Ah, well, that's the problem with intelligence as opposed to cleverness and street smarts... now and again I can't see the forest for the trees. –P.
Yeah. Shows what good it is. –W.
- In Pestilence's introductory essay, he talks about 'that deadly dull number seven.' What's that mean?
Don't want to spend too much time on this one. Petey says there are seven senses, seven dimensions (Uh, length, width, depth, time, sentience, intelligence, G-d)... "[you must forgive a man] not seven times but seventy-seven..." (Matthew 18;21), "a righteous man falls seven times, yet he rises again" (Proverbs 24:16)... seven trumpets, seven seals, seven thunders, seven bowls a' judgment on the day we first arrived... see my point? Petey probably means this is where G-d's imagination kinda fails. Or gets too predictable fer his taste. –W.
Yeah, Willie, you know sometimes I wonder how come there were only four Horsemen. –F.
Don't start soundin' like Petey, now, 'bro; only 4 of us was necessary. That's all. –W.
I stand rebuked. --P.
- You seem to have a certain familiarity with the ancient times, even though you weren't there. Do you have any opinion on whether the ancient Greek, Roman or Egyptian gods really existed?
Doubt they are still around, but of course they were real. Once. Too many believed in them for them not to be real. Sound familiar? Don’t forget Ellison's Law, or the first commandment in the Christian catechism: "I am the Lord thy G-d, thou shalt have no strange gods before me." Now, why would He even acknowledge the existence of gods which didn't exist? Neat reasoning, I think. –F.
We have a familiarity with antiquity because late in that time is when we first arose! We certainly weren't 'all there,' but we were there. Having said that... it's my opinion, though nobody asked me, that the ancient world had a better grip on 'world' and the progress of time through same as opposed to the 'modern' era in which you are reading this. The pagan gods were the engine of reality (given there were no other easily understandable explanations available -- have you ever tried to read Plato's Timaeus ?!), and humanity divined their own reactions to events and circumstance by what they saw around them, placating or supplicating the gods with sacrifice or adherence to set rules (most of which were nigh alarmingly close to the Ten Commandments – look up Julianus Imperator's essay "Against the Galileans" to be reminded how Christianity had deep roots in any number of sources). It was a generally accepted fact that humankind and the gods had an inequal and unstable but extant partnership in assembling the world about them. When men and women misinterpreted the signs, to recall Cicero, they'd just have to try harder next time. But the coming of Christianity to the Western world implied a competition between G-d and humankind. 'Free will' again! Note how the sub- and unconscious minds of men and women keep twisting the steering wheel of creation in unexpected directions! And the receding image of G-d in an increasingly secular Western world (I don't think it fair to say much about other cultures with which I'm not as familiar) has sent the idea of this 'competition' underground. Over to you for how inadvisable this was... just a thought. –P.
- Humanism, the Renaissance, and the Industrial Age don't seem to have made much of an impression on you, on history as you retell it or on this web site. Why?
Civilization is a varnish that you can't get at a hardware store. Only a varnish. Nothing more. –P.
Look closely at human history and you'll see it has less of an effect on humanity than you might think. What civilization does is cushion its inhabitants from the facts of existence. Existence has this nasty tendency, though, of burning through the cushion. See the destruction of the Persian Sassanid Empire by the Arab Muslim followers of the prophet Mohammed in 642 C.E. or the Sack of Rome in 1527 C.E. by the armies of Charles V, the French Duke of Bourbon and the German Landsknechte. And how about the Nazis, they were no bargain either. The Khmer Rouge... the Sendero Luminoso... how different were they really from the band of Goths who stormed and demolished the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus in 257 C.E.? Not a bit. Old souls in new bottles, for all we know. If Time twists back on itself, and you've read that elsewhere here, well, given that civilization is a function of time, how real can it be?
One more time, okay: nothing lasts forever, including history. We're trying to show the bloody eyeless face behind civilization's mask. The mask only obscures, so you won't see much of it here. –F.
You’ll recall this/ from the book of Ecclesiastes:
- Generations come and generations go,
- But no difference does it make...
- What has been shall be again;
- What has been done shall be done again;
- There is nothing new under the sun.
- Is there anything of which one might say, "Look! This is something new"?
- It was here already, long before.
- It was here before our time.
- (Ecc. 1: 4, 10-11)
all you have to do is remove time from that verse/ and... –D.
Good! Now they don't have to look it up. –F.
- why did the compilers of the Bible at the Council of Carthage leave Ecclesiastes in if it’s such a downer?
To show that earthly wisdom isn’t all you need to figure it all out. No wonder we like to quote it!
Besides, it must have seemed kind of germane at the time of the Council in 397 C.E.: Theodosius the Great was dead, his sons Honorius and Arcadius were both idiots, and the Christian Roman Empire was beginning to sunder from the subdivision of 395... to say nothing of the continuing onslaught from northern tribes, Vandals and Persians. Which is, in other words, to say even Christianity couldn't save the Empire! 'Heaven and Earth shall pass away,' etc. I'd say Ecclesiastes at that particular time was probably cold comfort, but I get the feeling you'll agree cold comfort is better than none. –F.
- Since we didn't know our opinions or our free will were dooming trillions and decatillions of ourselves to be shunted off into the Heavens and Earths which Jesus said will pass away (Matthew 24:35), who is to blame for the fact that no matter how correct a life I lead, I may never see salvation?
You are! Ignorance of the Laws which Govern Earth is no excuse. It's why we included them on this web site. –F.
Oh, yes, and he says that very same thing in Luke 21:33 and Mark 13:31 as well. So I have a feeling it's probably true. –P.
Et in Arcadia ego. –P.
What I said. –W.
- Who really was the Last Man of Antiquity?
St. Augustine of Hippo, I think. Yeah, he mourned the sack a' Rome in 410 C.E. as if he thought th' Empire would always exist. Pathetic. An' he died just as th' Vandals were ravaging North Africa. Maybe he should of read his own books. –W.
Emperor Julian, or 'Julian the Apostate.' Reviled and hated for millennia just because he preferred not to be a practicing Christian, and who can blame him since converting the clan to Christianity did not prevent his cousin Constantius II Augustus from decimating his family, so there would be no usurpers? In opposing him, he who was most possibly the last great Roman general of the 4th century, (and who had he still been alive 15 years after he fell in Persia, might well have been able to coax the Goths who were escaping the Huns in 376-7 into becoming good semi-Romans), the myopic Christian clerics sealed the Empire's fate, and thus had only themselves to blame for the Dark Ages. Assuming, that is, that the destruction of the Western half of the Empire was not something they had in mind all along so that they could cull the vast libraries of pagan texts... --P.
I'll go with Iamblichus of Chalcis. He saw Christianity coming like a freight train and tried to use the failing ideas of paganism to liven up Plato and Plotinus. Shame it didn't entirely work. Enough to screw up the universe, yeah, but not enough to negate Christianity. Somehow I get the feeling that the Crusades might never have happened if all the medieval knights could think to say was, 'The Divine Triad wills it!' Hard phrase to take seriously. –F.
Our 'dad' St. John/ call him a sentimental choice/ he still thought it could all be saved/ albeit in a changed form/ he saw us rise out of the dirt on Patmos/ and wrote us into the world/ not that we wouldn’t have been starving you, cutting your throats, making you hack up blood and smashing your skulls anyway/ but he warned you/ and none of you listened/ and now it's for all intents too late/ or is it?/ hey, maybe it's not/ remember how we said that Time is a fog?/ maybe you're standing on a mote of time in which it isn't too late yet/ so have you figured out what you have to do?/ but St. John had Augustine's faith/ if just as foolhardy/ he had Julian's determination/ though he wouldn't have wanted to hear that/ and he had Iamblichus' inventiveness/ ditto/ still up to you to determine whether his time on Patmos was all in vain/ unless you've already given up/ I sure hope so –D.
- There can't possibly have been a large enough number of people who believed in Iamblichus' Neo-Platonism to make the difference in this 'island creation' that you claim it did.
- Suggest you reread Petey's essay on multiple realities! Look at ancient Western and Eastern societies. Anybody who had time to expound to the air like Lao-tse or Aristotle had to have their basic needs already sorted out. If not, all they were capable of was working their (or somebody else's) fields 15 hours a day. Like the immense majority of humanity was stuck doing. Not a lot of time to get an opinion down in one's head! Right? So in any case there were countless souls who never had an opportunity to have their go at the wheel because they were too busy trying to survive to have any ideas. They came and went unknown and unseen, for all. This really shrunk the pool of those who could afford to have an opinion, and so for all we can be sure, it also lowered the number of persons necessary to set the ship's wheel in a new direction. Like we said before, to alter your circumstances you have to begin with an opinion! Also, these neo-Platonist ideas do have their basis in Plato, probably the most famous Western philosopher of all time. Like I said, do the math! –F.
- But aren't there more Christians and so forth now than Neo-Platonists and quantum physicists who believe in Dr. Everett's many-worlds interpretation?
Plato came into prominence long before Christianity did. One never knows... maybe some changes to the face of the plexiverse are indelible. Or it may be simple inertia. –P.
Yeah, good question, huh? Why didn't JC get born sooner? Ain't this G-d's shooting match? Or is it? --W.
It is/ but I bet Somebody 'Waited' too long again. –D.
Just thought of another hypothesis. What about the concentration or the level of faith in those which believe in the thing which then becomes true thanks to their belief? Do the adherents have to have a minimum level of faith along with a minimum number of souls? Possibly the level of faith in other factions is not as high as you think it is. Or, not as high as they say it is. –P.
- Why did G-d order the Pharisees to rise up in 70 C.E. against the Romans, when it was the Pharisees who were instrumental in the death of his Son?
- The order, if that's how it worked, was given to a different group of Pharisees, you know. The Crucifixion occurred about 40 years before the uprising of 70 C.E. I get the feeling that Annas and Caiaphas and their henchmen were all dead by then. Your Creator doesn't have your faults, you know. You have His. –F.
- Is there really a structure of illuminati or was that just more Enlightenment paranoia?
You do realize we aren't omni-anything? There is that which exists with which we have no experience. However, I don't see anything around me which implies that, as Pynchon put it in 'V', 'thirteen of us rule the world in secret.' He meant that as a joke. Let's just say that we have no evidence that the concept of Illuminati is false or true. As before, if enough were to believe it...? A return to paganism, anyone? But Hinduism is doing nicely in South Asia, so why not some more experience-based polytheism in the Western World? Reread Harlan Ellison's DEATHBIRD STORIES, and you'll see he's noted the arrival of certain pre-personalized nodes of worship which, one day, may well have names again! I know the Illuminati, such as they are, were never worshipped per se, but fealty has many levels. Just like 'reality.'
Well, I'm putting too much pepper in the soup again. Never mind, we know who the real G-d is. And we've seen what happens when He becomes irritated. So let's move on, quickly. –P.
- Is human barbarity ever going to supplant you and your efforts?
Yer kidding, right? People've always been barbaric t' one another. You just hear more about it now, an' there's more people alive now than were in, maybe, th' 1200s. Do th' math. We say that a lot, I jus' noticed. –W.
Since we are the random factor inherent in all things under the sun, there's no way to remove that except to change your opinions en masse away from humanism towards behaviorism. Not something that would win many referenda! Humankind loves its freedom! Or what passes for it. And as for the human level of viciousness, William is correct, 'twas ever thus: in Ammianus Marcellinus' HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, he mentions Julianus Augustus' Conference of the Sectarians in 361 C.E... In same the Emperor instructed all the differing sects of Christians to get along and allow one another to worship as they pleased; being a Neo-Platonist and a pagan, he wisely understood that they would immediately resume persecution of one another with even greater ferocity simply because he told them not to do so! "Experience had taught him that no wild beasts are such dangerous enemies to man as Christians are to one another." (Book 22, 5.1). Now, think on the Hunnic wars of the 5th and 6th centuries C.E... the Crusades... the eternal persecution of the Jews... the Thirty Years' War... Nigeria's destruction of Biafra... the Serbian concentration camps... the 400,000 dead in Darfur, Sudan... and there will be more. Far more. We had very little hand in any of that.
Remember always that it's a race between your fellow human and we as to which gets to you first. –P.
- Are you the Divine Horsemen of Voudou?
- No. I think we might've glimpsed them somewhere, or they us, yeah. Hard to be around in this island creation for a long time without seeing just about everybody. Just about. Where voudou is concerned, though, don't forget that voudou is about getting things done. We are about getting things undone. –F.
- I give up, I don't understand a word of any of this.
- Just what we were hoping you’d say/ --D.
- There are a lot of philosophers and theologists who disagree with what you’ve said here.
Yeah, so? –W.
I think that our observations (and those human authorities in the speculative arts and sciences who back up our observations) should trump the opinions and research of those who don't agree. As I have previously made clear, humankind views the plexiverse from the tiniest possible pinhole in a wall infinitely long and wide. So much is hidden from you, it's practically criminal. And yet you've done quite well in your surmises. Generally. But there's a fundamental disconnect to human speculation that I have not mentioned before, and it is called impatience. Having only your threescore years and ten, there is a human tendency to take too many shortcuts to a destination. Any one scientist has to admit that there are times he wants all the credit. This Theory of Everything search, for example... to only utilize one endeavor, such as science, to divine said explanation, for example, just makes no sense. One has to use everything one knows to do that. Finally, to reach those who are receptive, we have to employ (and bend) human rules of communication, logic, research, et al. Many human thinkers will not have, and won't, use(d) our methods. –P.
Well, we did what we could. Back to work! –F.
Way ahead of ya/ --D.
Email a comment or suggest another question