Monday, April 25, 2011

Envious Cravemen and Liberal Proglodytes

As we were saying in the previous post, the origins of everything are obscure. One of the reasons for this is that science has no difficulty tracking continuity. The trick is how to account for true discontinuity and still call it "science."

Inevitably, science deals with the problem by explaining the novel and unknown in terms of the past and the known. It superimposes what it knows on what it doesn't.

In so doing, it drags life into matter, pneuma into brain, and subject into object, and then just ignores both the remainder that defies such a simplistic reduction and the many irreducible paradoxes that result.

For the scientistic mindset, the emergence of a puzzling discontinuity such as humanness is not really a radically novel development, only a continuation of monkeys. Life is nothing special, just a statistically rare arrangement of matter. And even the cosmos itself is no big deal, just a random fluctuation in the quantum void.

Thus, when science tries to explain everything -- or when it tries to leap outside itself, toward ultimate explanations -- it necessarily explains nothing, for science can no more explain itself than the eye can see vision or the fingers can grasp the hand.

The purpose of science is not -- and cannot be -- to explain "everything." Science always requires an implicit frame of reference in order to make sense, and this frame of reference is always metaphysical and/or theological.

We would have no objection to this if they made their metaphysics explicit, but they never do this. Instead, they make the most outrageous claims while pretending that these claims are not rooted in a metaphysic that the science itself can in no way support, for the science is a posteriori to the metaphysic.

We must bear these caveats in mind as we search for the "origins of politics," for we will not actually discover them through the methods of science. Science will show us shadows and footprints, but never the thing itself. Irrespective of whether one calls oneself scientific or religious, rational or transrational, a leap of faith is required in order to "settle" the matter. A matter is settled when our mind is at peace, and no longer persecuted by the presence of the unKnown.

Take the example of those 3D magic eye pictures. In Bion's metapsychology, the random-appearing dashes of color are analogous to "thoughts without a thinker," or what he calls beta elements. These are the raw material, so to speak, of thinking.

It is the work of a moment to analogize this to the human condition, for we all find ourselves immersed in a giant 4D Magic Eye Motion Picture we call the Cosmos, and starring you in the lead. The odd thing is that you must simultaneously play your role while figuring out the plot.

The sudden emergence of the three-dimensional image out of the chaotic void is what Bion calls alpha function, but you are free to simply call it "thinking." A person who fruitfully thinks will constantly be engaging in alpha function, that is, continuously bringing together and synthesizing the raw stuff of life into novel syntheses. As we mature -- so long as we are rooted in, and guided by, the teleological attractor of Truth -- these syntheses are successively wider and therefore deeper.

Thus, our psychospiritual development is intrinsically non-linear and discontinuous, as we gather more existence into our being. And to say "depth" is immediately to leave science behind, for depth is a measure of soul -- in fact, the most adequate measure of soul, in any field.

Why is Shakespeare deeper than [fill in the blank]? For the same reason that Aretha is deeper than Celine Dion, or any artist or thinker is deeper than another. The deepest idea can be made shallow in the head of a shallow soul -- for example, the profound ideas of God, or Creation, or Evolution (or Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively).

So let's keep this in mind as we search for the origins of politics, which are buried in the mythterious origins of humanness.

Fukuyama reminds us of that quintessential example of scientistic materialism gone nuts, Marxism: "they posited a theory of developmental stages -- primitive communism, feudalism, bourgeois society, and true communism -- all driven by an underlying conflict between social classes."

There is so much wrong with this formulation that we don't have time to fisk it to pieces -- besides, History has already done so.

But note that it begins with materialistic assumptions -- it is, after all, "dialectical materialism" -- so that its conclusions are foreordained. It is a perfect example of a theory that explains everything and therefore nothing. But do the tenured nevertheless put their faith in postmodern variants of it? Does a boor shoot hoops in the White House?

Fukuyama is correct that "the evolution of political complexity" is "not linear: a given stage of development often contain[s] characteristics of earlier ones, and there [are] multiple mechanisms moving society from one stage to another."

Now, once we even use the word "stage," we are talking about hierarchy, about evolution, and about superiority. In other words, we are outside the domain of science, and inside the qualitative and properly human domain of values.

But liberals are profoundly uncomfortable with the human world, so they deicided to abolish the hierarchy with their doctrines of cultural relativism and multiculturalism. In this weird variant of Marxist materialism, all modes of production are equal, except for capitalism, which is worse.

This is another example of the incoherence of any form of secular materialism. As we have said many times, it is not the Raccoon who denies evolution, but the metaphysical Darwinian. Just as the leftist stole the term "liberal" to conceal his essential illiberalism, the Darwinist has stolen the word "evolution" to conceal his necessarily horizontal worldview, in which nothing can be higher or lower than anything else.

Properly speaking, the metaphysical Darwinist believes in change, not evolution. This was exemplified by our recent troll, who explained to us that human beings are simply an adaptation to funky weather. Since no weather is objectively better or worse than any other weather, humans are no higher or lower than anything else in this 2D unmagic eye picture. Suffice it to say, this doesn't even explain our cosmic funkmanship, let alone less important capacities.

Thus, Fukuyama is again correct in noting that "cultural relativism is at odds with evolutionary theory, since the latter necessitates identifying different levels of social organization and the reasons why one level gets superseded by another."

I also want to return to Fukuyama's previous statement about later stages containing elements of earlier ones. This is indeed a key principle, for any transformation must work with the existing material. Thus, I am not surprised that the laws of physics explain certain things about me. But to pretend that I can be reduced to physics is just stupid. Indeed, it is the other way around: humans explain physics, not vice versa.

Likewise, to pretend that humanness can be reduced to genetics or environment is equally stupid. Nevertheless, we should not be surprised to find traces of apehood in man, elements of primitive communism in modern economies, and elements of tribalism in liberal democracies. This hardly means that the latter terms can be reduced to the former.

One of the principle ways -- perhaps the principle way -- tribalism endures in the modern world is via the left. In defining itself as "postmodern" and "progressive," the modern leftist ironically becomes an atavistic proglodyte, for extremists meet in this cosmos.

Fukuyama notes that in the world of early humans, there is "nothing resembling modern individualism," which reminds us of the forced anonymity of the leftist hive, which reduces us all to racial, or gender, or socioeconomic categories.

For example, in Obamaworld, a hard working person earning $250,000 a year, who has five children in private schools, a wife at home, a mortgage underwater, and no net worth, is a "millionaire." Any individuality is effaced by the ravenous demands of the state.

In both the premodern and postmodern worlds, we are bound by what the anthropologist Ernest Gellner called the "tyranny of cousins." This is obvious in the former, as everything we think and do is defined and constrained by our place in the clan: "That is, your social world was limited to the circles of relatives surrounding you, who determined what you did, whom you married, how you worshipped, and just about everything else in life."

And in our opinion, one of the key psychic mechanisms that held this system together was and is envy. Envy was evolved to solve a serious problem, i.e., group unity and harmony, for human beings cannot survive outside the group. All primitive groups are characterized by the "evil eye" of envy, which makes its target feel uncomfortable and persecuted by these envious projections. But in order to evolve out of tribalism toward universality, we had to first break through the envy barrier, hence the 10th Commandment of spiritual evolution: you shall not covet your neighbor's whatever. In short, envy is natural; transcendence of envy is supranatural.

Thus, the leftist hardly needs to invent envy. He must only provoke, legitimize and exploit it in order to gain power over the envious, and eventually over all of us. Like the cravemen they are, they just want to be fair, and spread the poverty around.

67 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

Inevitably, science deals with the problem by explaining the novel and unknown in terms of the past and the known. It superimposes what it knows on what it doesn't.

Ho! Right off the bat that's a nice bit of synchronicity - it ties in perfectly with this article I was just reading on the brain's perception of time (emphasis mine):

“Try this exercise,” he suggests in a recent essay. “Put this book down and go look in a mirror. Now move your eyes back and forth, so that you’re looking at your left eye, then at your right eye, then at your left eye again. When your eyes shift from one position to the other, they take time to move and land on the other location. But here’s the kicker: you never see your eyes move.” There’s no evidence of any gaps in your perception—no darkened stretches like bits of blank film—yet much of what you see has been edited out. Your brain has taken a complicated scene of eyes darting back and forth and recut it as a simple one: your eyes stare straight ahead. Where did the missing moments go?

The whole thing is worth a read, though it's a bit on the long side.

Now back to the post...

4/25/2011 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Very Polanyiesque.

4/25/2011 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Also apropos is this post by Chastek over at Just Thomism, though I think he takes it in a very different direction (and may have a more Thomistic definition of materialism than is used here):

"Materialism is the basis of metaphysics – not because it is (entirely) true but because it is the first sort of metaphysics that a human being can know. But since everyone is embarrassed to be taken for an intellectual infant, human beings tend either to think materialism is true or that they need to refute it in the sense of coming to see it as entirely false and even evil. The middle between these two extremes is to accept that all our thoughts are based on an intellectual infancy, and that the first things we know are at the same time a.) the source of all our later thoughts and b.) the place from which we can make the most mistakes. The closer we are to home, the more we know about what’s around us, but (by definition) it is also the place from which we can take the greatest possible number of wrong turns if we want to journey from home."

4/25/2011 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Re. Polanyiesque, yes I was thinking that, too. It seems as though tacit knowledge is to our perception of the world as bacteria is to the makeup of the human body. Or as empty space is to solid matter. If that makes sense.

4/25/2011 09:25:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, for Thomas -- I believe this is correct -- matter is definitely real, and the beginning of knowledge. But it is only knowable because it is created. Thus, ironically, matter is precisely knowable because it is ultimately unknowable, i.e., inexhaustible in its potential meaning.

But what we call a modern materialist assumes matter is intelligible to intelligence, while having no idea how or why.

4/25/2011 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

"Inevitably, science deals with the problem by explaining the novel and unknown in terms of the past and the known. It superimposes what it knows on what it doesn't."

And I'd have bet money that the book you linked to "envy" toward the end of the post was going to be Bailie's book.

(because that's the book I know :-)

4/25/2011 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Maximus the Coonfessor speaks for us in his cosmic evolutionary metaphysic:

"Man was introduced last among existent things, as a natural bond between the extremes of the whole through his own parts, and bringing into unity in his person those things which by nature are far distinct from each other. Drawing all things out of their former division and bringing them united to God by means available in the right sequence and order, he finally reaches the goal of the sublime ascent which is achieved through the union of all things..."

4/25/2011 09:52:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Funny weekend trivia fact...

I was listening to my wife watching the Ten Commandments. You know how Edward G Robinson's character is at every opportunity trying to cause some division in the followers. During the time he is left alone with them while Moses is on the mountain with God, I hear Mr. Robinson say to the complaining followers, "I know your pain." I mean, that's about as close to "I feel your pain" as you can get.

4/25/2011 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Please forgive this Sam-referential comment..

"The odd thing is that you must simultaneously play your role while figuring out the plot."

What a novel idea!

4/25/2011 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Theofilia said...

In Bob's words:

"depth is a measure of the soul"

--and from couple of blogs eralier this quote--

"bliss ananda is pursuit of happiness".

Those two statements imply, that the "Soul's depth" is revealed by her ability to chase after earthly happines?

My perspective is different. True Bliss-ananda is the ECSTASY of the Soul, (which is felt) in every fiber of my being 24/7.

4/25/2011 11:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

We do not mean "happiness" in the colloquial sense, Bozo. Now get back on your meds.

4/25/2011 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger Theofilia said...

Go back on my meds?

I didn't know you have a sense of humor, Petey!

4/25/2011 11:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Oh yes. We are also the cause of humor in others such as yourself.

4/25/2011 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger Theofilia said...

Hey Petey, can you do me a favour?

Can you tell Bob I'm not his enemy?

4/25/2011 11:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

No. I only tell Bob what he doesn't know. If you have imaginary enemies, you need to go back on your meds.

4/25/2011 11:38:00 AM  
Blogger Theofilia said...

cute!
mucho cheek^smooochies:)

4/25/2011 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I didn't want to say it.

4/25/2011 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

Rick,
Fr. Longenecker just did a post on the Holy Face of Manapello, which is an image on an extremely rare fabric called byssus, or "mussel silk".
So... Vincent Price, overseer and vile seducer, tells Debra Paget that her seducee dress is made of "the beards of shellfish", iow,
byssus.
Sync!

4/25/2011 12:19:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Sal,
I remember Mr Price saying that.. Interesting..
Thanks!

4/25/2011 12:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Ramesses the XXXIII said...

"Bozo get back on your meds"

This from a therapist?

You have crossed some kind of line here, Mister. No real therapist even thinks like that. You have failed another profession. Good going.

And this rancid retread of a post is another kicking of the same dead dog.

Science bad. Leftist bad. BFD. LIKE WE DON'T KNOW THIS ALREADY CAUSE YOU DONE TOL' US BEFORE. Got it? I mean GOT IT?

OK Bob here it is: time to move on to new pastures. Seriously what else have you got? If you don't have anything then you're done as a writer.

Done as an author. Done as a blog publisher. Done as a friend and as a decent human being.

Where ARE you in relation to God at this point?

4/25/2011 03:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you have consciousness cut off from its source as observed in genesis with the tree of life and consequently the mind cut off from the innate intellegence of the body,then one can see the truth as expressed by John ~ in Him was life and the life was the light of men, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it

4/25/2011 03:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Old Fart said...

And yet, against all reason, Ramesses, you're still here.

4/25/2011 03:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Remesses XXXIII said...

Calling all of Bob's regular commenters and supporters. Hear me.

Petey wrote to Theofilia "...Bozo, get back on your meds."

Bozo. A clown. A figure of riducule. Someone you laugh at, not with. What is a clown worth? Not much. What does this word say then? You are worthless. Nice, eh?

"get back on your meds." Unstable, mentally ill. Combine it with clown and you get the picture: if you're mentally ill, then you are worthless. You are a clown. Get back on your meds so you won't bother me. I don't want you around me.

Sweeeeeeeeet. Good one! Clap clap!

Imagine now R.G the therapist with a fragile lady, maybe depressed. Do you think she's going to get good care? Really? Would you want your mother/sister/aunt to go to R.G and take their chances?



What we just read is verbal abuse. I want you to try to fit yourself into Theofilia's shoes and ask yourself how that must have felt.

Now,are you going to stand by and allow Theofilia to be harmed without comment, or will you intervene? What does your soul tell you is the right thing to do? Not the easy thing to do, but the right thing to do?

R.G is a real abuser. I've now read two instances and I think it establishes a pattern.

Now do the right thing. Tell R.G you don't like that kind of behavior, and will not tolerate it on the blog. Tell it to him respectfully. I sure he "knows he has a problem" by now.

So, Van, c'mon. You are a decent man. Say something.

4/25/2011 04:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Peasant said...

Come and see the violence inherent in the Cosmos!

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

4/25/2011 04:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

I see two possibilities. Either Petey was joking, or the lady needs meds.

4/25/2011 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

I just assumed his smartphone auto-corrected it. As in, "Alright, back on your heads!"

4/25/2011 04:51:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

(Rick - reminds me of a funny one my friend sent the other day. She wrote: "Do you want to meet for lunch tomorrow? I ambush until 11:00am...")

4/25/2011 04:54:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Spork!

4/25/2011 05:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remesses XXXIII -- you are right, I've often wondered how a therapist can be such a judgmental, prejudiced, nasty-minded boor. I really hope his professional persona is different from the one displayed here. I know if I was a therapist I'd probably need to vent some accumulated negativity, maybe that's what's going on.

There is a whole mini-blogosphere of right-wing crank psychotherapists.

4/25/2011 08:31:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

You forgot name-caller.

4/25/2011 08:40:00 PM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Bob is at least three people here and that constitutes group therapy, where the rules are much more lax.

:o)

4/25/2011 08:47:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Rick, not to mention sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot.

Joan - lol :)

4/25/2011 08:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Twilight with Christ said...

Bob, I'm holding you accountable for what you said to Theofilia.

As a man of God you are duty bound to promote ONLY the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Instead you have issued a statement to an inoccent and vulnerable woman that is not good, not true, and not beautiful. You have caused harm.

It is a bad and ugly lie you said, that she is a clown in need of meds.

I charge you with one count of malicious verbal abuse. Of course as a therapist you know what abuse is and what harm it can do, and you chose to write your cruel comment anyway. That shall not pass.

Unless you promptly apologize to Theofilia and promise to do no further harm, you will be defrocked of your status as a worker for God, have your coon hat taken away, and will come down from the mount and join the benighted masses of the ignorant for a period of six months.

And your blog will be classified as vulgar trash even if you continue to waste your time writing it.

So put up what defense you have, you devil dog. I will hear it.

4/25/2011 09:06:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Is it too late to say stuff to Theofilia?
Because I'd like to be held accountable too.

4/25/2011 09:24:00 PM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

"As a man of God you are duty bound to promote ONLY the good, the true, and the beautiful."

Good thing you weren't around when Jesus was gettin' busy with that whole flogging of the tax collectors.

Besides, that's what Theophilia is around here: emotionally taxing in her stubborn obtuseness. She has no desire to engage on the subject, only to propound her inanities.

I'm pretty sure this is Bob's Blog, not a therapy session.

If it were therapy, Bob would charge a lot more. If it were Church, Bob would tickle more ears and soothe more egos; there's no money in it otherwise.

As it is, everyone in the "room" gets what they came for. For free. Nomesayin'?

4/26/2011 04:27:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"For the scientistic mindset, the emergence of a puzzling discontinuity such as humanness is not really a radically novel development, only a continuation of monkeys. Life is nothing special, just a statistically rare arrangement of matter. And even the cosmos itself is no big deal, just a random fluctuation in the quantum void.

Thus, when science tries to explain everything -- or when it tries to leap outside itself, toward ultimate explanations -- it necessarily explains nothing, for science can no more explain itself than the eye can see vision or the fingers can grasp the hand. "

And such a view is what produces Professors who consider "Violence is a tactic", no big deal. As one student asks, quite logically (assuming reality is excluded from logical consideration), 'What number does it take to change a few terrorists into legitimate revolution?", showing that she's learned the Quantities over Qualities lesson very well indeed. The Professor, not distracted by such small thinking replies "When you win, then it's a revolution".

Ah... the wonders of 'education'.

4/26/2011 05:37:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"It is the work of a moment to analogize this to the human condition, for we all find ourselves immersed in a giant 4D Magic Eye Motion Picture we call the Cosmos, and starring you in the lead. The odd thing is that you must simultaneously play your role while figuring out the plot."

And a central key as to whether or not your story is worthy of your attention, is how you attend to this,

" The deepest idea can be made shallow in the head of a shallow soul -- for example, the profound ideas of God, or Creation, or Evolution (or Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively)."

4/26/2011 05:51:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"For example, in Obamaworld, a hard working person earning $250,000 a year, who has five children in private schools, a wife at home, a mortgage underwater, and no net worth, is a "millionaire." Any individuality is effaced by the ravenous demands of the state."

Not to mention that to the obamaite, such a person has burdened the Earth with five more eaters of the fixed pie, and even worse, five more walking glowbull warming emitters.

4/26/2011 06:00:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Right, Joan. I believe it was to Peter that Jesus said "get back on your meds!" when Peter tried to save Him (Matthew 16:23)
I was shocked 2,000 years later.

Actually the situations are pretty similar. Theo came to boast that Bob didn't know what bliss was. Even if it were true it's still boasting about your experiences. Keeping in mind that the point of the comparison Bob presented was that the similarities between "happiness" and "bliss" are striking in the context of the two statements that are of very different origin. They are much more similar than they are different. They are both three part harmonies, beginning-middle-ends, etc. They line-up perfectly. Perfect enough for most people's books. They telos about the same things from different ends of the globe and history.

That's a bit of a tangent. But not really.

Jesus knew who he was talking to. Bob's been at the day job for 20 plus years. I was a little shocked when Bob said it. Then I remembered who was talking to whom.
And the trolls just seize the opportunity. What smells like blood. Schoun had something to say about a small fissure in a mountain. Who looks for them. And this isn't even a fissure.

4/26/2011 06:06:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"But in order to evolve out of tribalism toward universality, we had to first break through the envy barrier, hence the 10th Commandment of spiritual evolution: you shall not covet your neighbor's whatever. In short, envy is natural; transcendence of envy is supranatural.

Thus, the leftist hardly needs to invent envy. He must only provoke, legitimize and exploit it in order to gain power over the envious, and eventually over all of us. Like the cravemen they are, they just want to be fair, and spread the poverty around."

Could save a lot of trees by chucking most poly-sci books, replacing them with a simple card, with that embossed upon it.

4/26/2011 06:18:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

theeofeelya said ""
grunting ramsses hole said "So, Van, c'mon. You are a decent man. Say something."

Ah... crud. theofeelya's back.

Orderly! Meds! Stat!

(How's that?)

4/26/2011 06:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Paul Bearer said...

Well I thought Petey was the kind and merciful. Guess he's not. Guess he's just Bob. Kind of a letdown.

So you guys don't like Theofilia. OK. I get it.

But your behaviour isn't Christian.

4/26/2011 06:49:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Maybe you're right.
But if you could be so kind and explain how you think it isn't please.
Thank you.

4/26/2011 07:10:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Joan, good points, all. I'd add just one more observation, on the chance that any strangers might think the appearance is all there is here:

There have been a few times in the past where I thought Bob's comment to someone seemed surprisingly harsh, here in the comment boxes, only later to find that each time, there was a history with that person. Sometimes here, sometimes at their own blogs, sometimes involving emails. If anything, he was usually being milder than a great many others would be under the circumstances.

There is more to the story. And yes, this woman apparently needs to be on meds, and yes, she does act like a clown when she really gets going.

I can't think of too many nice ways to say that, and besides, coddling the behavior only makes it worse.

But you knew that already, didn't you Ramesses?

4/26/2011 08:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

My severity is always a mercy, if appreciated from beyond ego, and from the needs of the true self that is aching to be born! The baby does not know that the pimpslap of the midwife is not a punishment!

4/26/2011 08:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Besides, what kind of nut cares what an imaginary denizen of cyberspace thinks, anyway?

4/26/2011 09:31:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

I'm thinking Theo isn't the only one who needs meds...

4/26/2011 09:34:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I care what Petey thinks. And I don't appreciate his hurtful characterization of me as "nuts." Just something I have to live with.

4/26/2011 09:39:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Aw, don't take it too hard, Bob. Petey's right, and besides, could you do this blog if you weren't?

4/26/2011 09:43:00 AM  
Blogger Theofilia said...

Theofeeeelya strirred the tar pot!

How rancid is the smell here!????

4/26/2011 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Ramesses XXXIII said...

Ramesses brooks no excuses for abuse.

Saying the victim provoked it or it's for her own good are two of the saddest excuses commonly offered up by abusers and their facilitators.

Stating as Petey did that the harsh rebuke has any form of a spiritual sanction is another and worse offence than the original crime.

Ramesses therefore adds one count of spiritual fraud and hypocrisy to the charge of malicious verbal abuse.

I also charge Van with one count of aiding and abetting an abuser and cooperationg with spiritual fraud for his comment of 4/26/11 at 6:30 a.m.

Charges agains Julie for aiding and abetting are pending.

And Rick, you are under investigation as well. As for non-Christian behaviour, do you really need me to tell you to love your neighbor as thyself?

I will prosecute as many of you step forward to disgrace yourselves. Bring it on; I've got enough punishement for all.

4/26/2011 01:48:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Oh, rummie 3rd bender, fuck you and kiss my ass, respectfully. I aided and abetted no one, I insultained theeofeelya and you directly and intentionally all on my own, and without any interest in benefitting either one of you.
You have no other purpose here than that.
Ass for my Christianity card, feel free to come and get it any time you wish, a Chuck Heston provisions will of course apply... And you will have to issue me one first... But we can work out the details later.
S.w.a.k off

4/26/2011 02:44:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Namaste, dude.

4/26/2011 02:50:00 PM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

What, no charges for moi?!

Must've hit where I was aiming.

4/26/2011 03:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Thutmose IV said...

Van, your insolence is duly noted and you are now charged with one count each of insubordination and gross misconduct against an officer.

Keep racking up your penalities you cheeky rascal; you don't know enough to be afraid yet.

As for you, J of A, you have acquitted yourself well; nothing you have written is abusive or spiritually criminal. Yet. Advice: keep yourself clean and out of this one.

So, if you think you can get away with harming others or God on this blog, think again. No sir you may NOT.

4/26/2011 04:20:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

"As for non-Christian behaviour, do you really need me to tell you to love your neighbor as thyself?"

I don't think it means what you think it means. If humans didn't have a conscience, life would be a breeze.

4/26/2011 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

thumbuphisarse said "As for you, J of A, you have acquitted yourself well"

Joan... nyah nyah nyah nyah nyahhhhh!

;-)

4/26/2011 05:23:00 PM  
Blogger Theofilia said...

Petey, your severity shtick is not working on me:)
There is life after metaphysics. Fear not!

4/26/2011 07:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Peregrinations to the edge said...

So, Rick, what do you think it means?

And, in relation to what was written to Theofilia, how does it signify?

You tell me.

I don't have any confusion about it whatsoever.

4/26/2011 09:04:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

We would have no objection to this if they made their metaphysics explicit, but they never do this. Instead, they make the most outrageous claims while pretending that these claims are not rooted in a metaphysic that the science itself can in no way support, for the science is a posteriori to the metaphysic."

Which explains why a lot of scientists are asses.

Speakin' of asses and proglowdytes, why can't we get any trolls with at least a rudimentary sense of humor?
I mean, the troll believes it's an authority on what a Christian should be and all, and yet s/h/it can't read between the lions.

4/27/2011 01:28:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Pere,
First, thanks for asking.
Second, I'm no authority. Almost as far as one can get from it. But one thing I do know, most, if not all One-to-you dialogs in scripture (Jesus speaking directly to you the individual) mean more than they do on the surface. In the passage you use as an accusation, I add that it ALSO means what you think it means. But it is too strange. Such as his last words "Father, why have you foresaken me?!"
Third, do you really want to know? As in, really x infinity.

4/27/2011 04:56:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

By "too strange" I mean, I think it is supposed to bother you toward further, truthful, honesty (self-)examination. Let's face it. He does't just say, "Love your neighbor." Period. End of conversation.

4/27/2011 05:06:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

But I don't think I can tell you any more (any more of what I know or think about it) since you hide behind fake names. Which is somewhat if not all of the point, I think.

4/27/2011 05:11:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Your fake names mean you can't be trusted. I'm sorry. I'll get over it. Will you?

4/27/2011 05:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rick, I think it means love your neighbor. Period.

The question is, who is your neighbor?

4/27/2011 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Yes. And it falls.

I still think it was worth a shot.
Bye! Let me know when you're serious!

4/27/2011 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Theofilia said...

Ben asks:
"why can't we get any trolls with at least a rudimentary sense of humor".
here goeth one fer*real:

One dude aks another "what if we are totally wrong about this Theofeeeelya duddess, what if she is simply, uttery and absolutely God-intoxicated, and help but love us?"

"hmmmm, wouldn't that be a blast???!"

4/27/2011 10:07:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home