[Sphinx]

It seems that I am receiving a lot of pressure so that I start speaking up my mind. Like a confession. Like I am an arrogant guy who overuses strong language in humanities as if I am writing a computer program. Why am I using strong language in humanities? Well, obviously because I care. I was raised to care about public affairs. I was doing well at school and was supposed to lead, it seems. Did I? I don't know, are executive orders a kind of leadership? Note that I am using a weak language intentionally because it doesn't make sense to use strong language in a confession. Is it really a confession? Maybe not. But my intuition is telling me that the heat I am receiving from the society around me is because everybody expects me to write a confession. To write an essay about myself. And I shall avoid editing my confession. I shall not use backspace unless I make a typo (lol, ironically, I just made my first typo while I am typing the word "backspace" (lol, was it really my first typo? (anyways!))). As a student in the undergrad stage, I used to be hesitant. Not only when making public statements within student groups but even when writing software and when answering final exams. As a TA, I learnt to be assertive, because students are hesitant enough, and they don't need one more hesitant guy to make their life harder. Making strong statements in a class is a very serious responsibility, but did I have a choice? (Notice that I am drifting gradually towards assertive language again, maybe I should be less self-confident when judging myself as well (because, you know, who are other people but my judgement of the images imprinted insided my eye and processed by my brain?) Back to the topic. Gradually I have realized that I became overly assertive, specially as my mistakes became less and less frequent, and my self-confidence grew as a consequence of that. When was the last time you saw your brother? I was asked that question before. Like I have become a self-proclaimed god who operates in a vaccum. Do I disrespect others? Or my respect is conditional? Or maybe I don't care about anything anymore. There is an Azan in the background as I am writing these statements. When was the last time I talked to God? I mean, *the* God that I used to believe in before. I don't remember. I don't think I am an infidel, like an atheist or whatever. I have just come across many people who talk about theology with too much confidence without making sense (for me). After a while I just realized that maybe the reason they don't make sense is that they don't know what they are talking about. Talking to atheists made me gradually assertive in theology. So now, not only in programming but also in theology. The next step is politics. As it turns out, religion and politics were made intentionally in contrast with each others to give purpose to people like me who are supposed to lead. If you always rank higher than all others in your class, who dares to tell you what to do. Well, except God of course. But then how would you get the impression that God is telling you to do so and so. Obviously but telling you not to do so and so. There is a scene in the movie Inception when a Japanese businessman is being told that inspiring someone with an idea without giving them direct orders is not possible. The only way you could do so is by telling them NOT to do so. "If I tell you not to think about elephants, what do you think about?" "Elephants!" "You see!" So there has to be two conflicting messages in the society. A thesis and an anti-thesis. Politics and religion form a thesis/anti-thesis couple. The more I have become assertive about religion, I have become assertive about the anti-thesis, politics. If all religious people are no serious matter for me, then politics is just the matter of getting things done. But what things should be gotten done? That is the question. But notice that this term "begotten" is used when talking about newly-born babies. It is also used by priests when talking about Jesus Christ. That is the question, is a phrase used by Shakespear in Macbeth (did I spell it correctyl?). But why did I use that phrase, and -what seems like a more interesting question- if I hadn't read that phrase by Shakespear, would I have used it? That question was posed by the Oracle in the movie "The Matrix", if I hadn't watched that movie, would I have asked that meta-question? The question about question? Where did I get that term from? Meta-question is a term I just fabricated by recalling the term "meta-thinking", which basically means thinking about thinking. I read about that concept on wikipedia. If I hadn't read about that concept on Wikipedia, would I have fabricated that term? And what seems even more interesting, if I have never seen people fabricating terms in this ad-hoc manner before, whould I have dared to do so? So let's investigate this line of thought:
Word -> Phrase -> Question -> Concept. Doesn't this sound familiar? Seek and you shall find, ask and you shall be answered. I am tempted to Google this idiom, but let's get back to the topic. What things should be gotted done? For this is where I started my line of thought. Maybe I should seek the answer somewhere else, neither in politics nor in religion. And, programming is a good start. Logic and proofs. All that sounds too good as long as you don't take it seriously, for pragmatism is always there hindering you from taking humanities seriously. Am I an engineer? Or an engineering candidate? I don't know. The thing I do know is that as I have become more assertive I have become less sad. Not necessarily happier, but at least content with my loneliness at the top of my ivory tower. Only someone else on a neighboring ivory tower could be visible to me. The powerful, the intelligent, the beautiful. Power and intelligence are relevant to my pragmatic stance; they get things done. But beauty is a not a pragmatic concept, for me at least. As I perceive it, it is subjective. It depends on your taste and background. Does the fact that it is not a pragmatic concept makes it a purpose rather than a means? Power and intelligence are objects of desire, it seems, as they fulfill certain needs such as safety and comfort. But beauty. What is beauty and why do I care about it? One interpretation is that, after safety and comfort comes recognition, like Fokoyama says. So if power and intelligence are means towards an end, recognition could be the subject of desire, while beauty is just an object of desire that is associated in my mind with recognition. The problem it turns out is that I don't necessarily seek recognition from everybody, which is quite natural. I live in an ivory tower, and I only see those in neighboring ivory towers, but those on the ground are just out there. They are in the background of the picture. I trade with them to ensure that my ivory tower is safe and comfortable. Is that enough for them? I don't know. I am up there busy perfecting my tower. The mob down there can't reach me except through my old foes; those whom I surpassed a long time ago but I still have respect for them just out of custom and intimacy. They planted the seed in my head; that romance is within reach. My ivory tower is in good shape and now it is time to reap recognition from below rather than from other ivory towers. Although I didn't pay attention to that fact a lot at that time, other ivory towers already had their affairs settled with their mobs. Once I started my romance trip, my mob went crazy. Humanities everywhere. Humanities is the topic. Again I was supposed to lead, from my ivory tower, but I chose to play the fire fighter role. They didn't accept that. Why? I am not sure. I guess they expected me to pick a strong ideological stance and defend it. But my ideology is pragmatism and that is equivalent to the lack of ideology. Power and intelligence are means towards an end. What is your end? That's the question that they wanted me to answer, through romance. Through my choices, I guess. Am I going to pick a particular skin color or dress code? But I didn't. I didn't even pick a particular profession or even religion. Did they expect that? I don't know. But mobs are connected through their ivory towers. It seems that I, being in the process of settling my affairs with my mob, played the role of a link or a communication channel that arbitrates between the interests of other mobs and the interests of my mob. The group of colleagues that reached out for me expected me to become a public figure and they would be my men, or my competitors. But instead of bringing their thoughts up to me they tried to bring my responses down to their raw thoughts. I cooperated for a while but I couldn't keep up for long, and soon I picked the side of a centrist politician and quit the debate, returning to the top of my ivory tower, building with a pace much faster than ever before. It seems that my mob panicked. Or maybe they were faking it. I don't know. The academic-background religious leaders of my mob ended up in jail, and I too went to jail through a honey trap. In jail, I was supposed to come closer to the mobs that I arbitrated for their interests with my mob, and learn to seek recognition from them instead of their ivory representatives. I don't know if that mission was accomplised or not, but at least I cut connection with other ivory towers, that I am sure of. Also, the honey trap thing, and the helplessness I felt in prison were supposed to lessen my assertiveness. Probably they did. As soon as I was out of jail, I returned to the middle-class stratum in which I was immersed within my mob before I start building my ivory tower, pretending that they don't know about my jail time, and following my political candidate closely while pretending that the state no longer cares about me. Ironically, the jail experience only affected my technical connections, while the political/religious ivory league in which I used to play remained intact. Politics is the science of freedom, economics is the science of life. It seems that freedom is to get a pass from others to step onto their lives. But what is life? I guess it is about choice. Who do you let step onto your life? "Choose your people carefully." That was a quote from the movie Inception. What are your borders, expectations, (ordinaries?), boundaries, limits, and enigma? I will get back to these later. But for now let me get back to this paper. So it seems that if you step onto other people's lives without knowing the exact consequences of your steps, even if they did nothing to prevent you from doing so, at some point, you will find yourself being loved. Being at the center of other people's lives. And then they will play the same game with you. Love is beautiful, seek love. Let someone step onto your life. But then what is your life? What are your choices? Here comes the beauty theory. Romance and recognition. People around you have different lives, or at least they are pretending to be so. Which life will you choose? What if you don't care? What if you are a pragmatic guy who just wants to get *a* life. *Any* life. You know what will happen? If you keep getting "things" done, any things, and you don't fight for an ordinary life (first they ignore you) you will get a sexy life (they will play with you) then you likely won't fight for it either so you will get a terrible life, prison and violence (they will fight you), then you win. You start a *different* game, but from the same stage you started the previous game; that is, being ignored. Being loved without knowing that you are. Like a Simba. But what is violence. There is physical violence, being hurt physically, and moral violence, being hurt emotionally. By losing freedom. The very reason you ended up being loved. So here is the deal. If you don't choose what we offer you, you no longer get a pass to step onto our lives. It simply means that you are with us because we are available (Is this bad?). But what if you already cut your return lines? In physics it happens all the time. But in humanities very few people I guess do that. I guess public figures and revolutionaries do so. Politicians and freedom fighters. Arbitrators and transgressors. Those who have everything to lose, and those who have nothing to lose. Those who love and be loved, and those who hate and be hated. Who else? Also, what does it mean to cut your return lines? One possible answer is that people around you don't make consistent choices themselves. This way you always step onto their lives one way or another. Another possibility is that they have consistent choices but they don't reveal them. The question is: do I have consistent choices? And does it matter if I do? I am probably meticulous when it comes to my profession. But am I consistent in humanities? I have already cut connections with technical ivory towers, probably because I am technically in a good shape now to start my own business (what does this word mean?). But I am still connected to humanities ivory towers. Politicians and renegads. Former renegads who are now politicians, and former politicians who are now renegads. Not all countries have such equation, only at the time of revolution you see that. But let's get back to the topic, am I consistent in humanities? Do I make consistent choices? Does it matter if I do? Do I really love life (I mean, any life)? Love is to let someone step onto your life. What does it mean to ask if you let life step onto your life? I guess it means, do you love anything? I guess life for me is something ephemeral. It is not like asking, have your paused for a moment to reflect about your choices? I seem to be driven by instinct and nothing but instinct. Rationalism and the laws of physics. Basically, a slave. But a slave of what? Of the laws of physics. The laws of God. The only laws out there. I love life, but life for me is ephemeral, it is very beautiful and enjoyable. Physics is the bars that is placed between me and life. I accept life with open arms. I embrace it. But then what? Let's get back to politics. It seems that I am a Taoist who flows like water through other people's lives. But is it really water or something else? It seems that love is the key to freedom. You embrace life so you go through it like a soul. But why do I end up losing freedom. Because there is a lot of violence out there. Prisons and pain. If I love life and expect never to receive any of that does this make me a hypocrite? I don't think so. For prisons and pain are the bars between me and life, and I love life. Freedom is the key. That's why I love freedom and hate bars. But at the end of the day, aren't bars subjective. I mean, all bars are one way or another, bars. Walls, distances, price tags, hatred, harsh nature, diseases, complexity, and above all my weaknesses as a I human. But which bars do I choose to break? It is a trade-off. And I think this is what my mob wants me to answer. Assume I have full knowledge. Assume I have all possible bars and all possible objects of desire, which bars would I break to reach which objects of desire. What do I crave? How can we help you? I will get back to this question later, but for now let's reflect on this topic: why is water the essence of life? In animals, sperms and eggs complement each other's DNAs. But how about plants? Why is water the supplement of sperms in plants? I think I got it the other way around. Seeds seek water, not the other way around. Anyways. So freedom is the key to life. But it is not a secret key, unless you are in jail. Otherwise it is a key pair. Public and private keys. Rationalism is the public key and love is the private key. That's why people keep offering you objects of desire. Let's exchange our public keys. Let's get acquainted with each others. If I know your public key I know that it is you who is speaking. Then how about friendship? Let's exchange private keys. Is this what we call intimacy? Knowing that it is more likely than not that our conversation will remain private. You can be more open than you usually are. It gets heated and at some point one or both of you reach orgasm which I guess happens when you stop being rational. You let go and surrender. Your subject of desire floats up, revealing the instincts that drove you to exchange private keys. The problem with masturbation is that it is rational orgasm. (Is this true?). You self-hypnotize yourself by focusing on a fetish. But what is a fetish. I guess it is a blackhole subject of desire. Something you can't but love. Something you can't but let enter your life even if it is just for a few minutes. That's why masturbators keep resuing the same fetish over and over again. I guess an idol is an objective manifestation of a fetish, crafted using a thesis-antithesis pair. A moon that reflects the light of a sun. That's the thesis. The anti-thesis is the bars between you and your moon. There are multiple forms of life out there. We can assume that there is a matrix that maps objects of desire to subjects of desire for each individual, and whoever have this map can control the mob like pawns on a chess board, not necessarily in a negative sense. Note also that a wall can hide the moonlight, but riding a rocket to reach the moon won't make the moonlight brighter. In fact your path once you leave the earth is more likely to be darker than it used to be before you leave. So before you trade-off bars to get closer to your objects of desire you have to do the math. Not all people can do that. Whoever memorizes the matrix and knows which operators lead to which outcomes, that government is more likely to do long-term planning. But first you have to have a social network through which data and information flows. You need a glue that prevents this network from disintegrating, though in a prefect world you probably don't need this force. You probably need influential people within the network and some guarantee that you can get things done through those influential people. So let's call it soft force. People with reputation within the social network, and enough credit with the government. Some of those people may be public figures (lovers), some are revolutionaries (haters). The elite. This structure is awesome except that it lacks a purpose. The oracle of the matrix presents that purpose. Angels, devils, and oracles. Yes, no, and shall. Shepherds, wolves, and dogs. But beware, for sometimes it is hard to distinguish between dogs and wolves. Light, heat, and fire. In the natural order of things, light comes from the sun and the moon. But the sun brings heat as well, which is a mixed blessing. Too much heat may actually create fire. From which, behold, a subject of desire is now on earth. From necessity comes invintion. And from fire comes fire, and so on. But fire brings light and heat as well. At some point, people may ask, why is the sun there. Why do we need it? But it is too hot here, and people can't breath. But where does fire come from? Grass, wood, oil, and gas. Yellow, red, white, and blue fire. Seeds escape fire to seek water, where no fire can reach them. Sheeps follow their shepherds escaping fire. Only gas makes wolves. Wood and oil make dogs. Grass means water. But if it is dry and hot, and there is gas, wolves may show up. That's why seeds need to keep moving. To create more grass. More exit plans. From the ocean comes all life, and to it goes all life. Common sense. On earth, the war continues. Grass escapes gas. But dogs scare gas. Dogs make it hot on the short term and dry on the long term. So behold, more dogs mean wolves are more dangerous. But thin air scares wolves. When dogs and wolves get caught in fire. Wolves may go extinct. In the process, grass itself may also go extinct. It seems that oil is the slowest reproducable dog, and consuming it simplifies the system. Wood becomes carbon and carbon becomes diamond. Only grass remains. Wolves and sheep, shepherd without dogs. But wolves need ignition, like lightning storms. Oil and wood are the sources of fire out there, together with lighning storms. Sheep without dogs is destined to abuse grass. Only wolves can prevent this from happening. Either wolves go extinct first, or shepherds. In either case, the system maps simply to a preditor-prey pattern. Slow, like dinasours, in the case of sheep-vs-grass, or fierce, in the case of wolves-vs-sheep. Red versus green. Green versus yellow. In a perfect world, the earth should be either green or blue. Green for land, and blue for water. But let's get back to the topic. If you are a lover and a hater at the same time, then you are an idol. The elite of the elite, in the positive sense and the negative sense. The closer you get to them (if you can) the better off you are, and the worse off they are simply because everybody will do the same thus blocking each others leaving the idol effectively in isolation. Inside every idol there is a fetish. The exterior of the idol is perhaps the inverse of the fetish. After all, what is a fetish but a synthesis. A moon behind bars. But the matrix that trades-off bars is not always easy to calculate. The output of the idol is perhaps the inverse of the matrix. Note that not all matrices are invertible. To tame an idol, you either eliminate the fetish inside them, or at least transform it into something you know how to deal with. Remember Shakespears' taming the tiger play. A tiger is an example of a tamed idol. Goodness is a good example of a fetish. lol, have you noticed that. But some people consider it hypocrisy. As I said, economics is the science of life. Choices and systems of choices. Politics is the science of freedom and religion is the science of slavery. Goodness without god is a fetish. The impersonification of that fetish is an idol, a nobel criminal. Since an idol is the inverse of a fetish, a goodness fetish yields a master, if not tamed will tame you. Like a tiger who only sees a jungle and nothing but a jungle. "Theatre will make them forget god," said Marx. But who is god. Kinematics is the study of change. Stepping onto other peoples lives is a change. A synthetic life has among its components theses and anti-theses. Life matter and anti-life matter. Together they create a gravitational field that transcends time, in the sense that a change in any of the established life systems updates instantenously everywhere. An implicit social contract. Thus nodes in a social network are by default free. They don't calculate their choices. They are connected by instinctive love and hate amongst themselves including the elite. The existence of the elite simplifies the system. But the question is, do we really need idols? Do we need Robin Hood? The problem with idols is that they are a source of envy and guilt. Non-instinctive feelings. But first let's try to analyse why they do exist. It seems that idolatory is related to fear. Fear could be rational or irrational. Fear that love and hate are not enough to preserve the social contract (is that bad?). But why do we need to preserve the social contract? Why do we need to play the role of god? It is love. Some people are born to be loved, some people are destined to hate and be hated, but some people are lovers by nature. Like Jesus Christ. He loves everybody including haters. So he created an idol to ensure that the contract doesn't get breached. The idol could be the cross or virgin Mary or John the Babtist or Jesus himself, whatever your church is. Jesus on the cross exhibiting helplessness, pain, and humiliation is an assertion of a thesis. An icon of Jesus holding a book with a halo around his head is an anti-thesis. Politics and religion. Freedom and slavery. Together they form a life system. A consistent system of choices, or so it supposed to be. But it is a synthetic system. It translates to a fetish in your mind. A dogma. Don't kiss the girl next door, even if all the kids in your neighborhood are doing it all the time. It is a mixed message. A suppression of a desire creating an ego and an ego ideal. The ego is "the girl next door is special". The ego ideal is "I am special". The synthesis of these two message is "I am the special girl next door". Impersonification. Typically the girl next door is your mother. At some point, the girl next door is no longer special, Jesus is not a big deal any more, but who are you then? "I am the girl next door". Nothing speical. Like John the Baptist. He is the manifestation of empathy rather than sympathy. Rational love, instead of fetishism or idolatory. Remember that rationalism is a public key, and love is a private key. As people get tied to each others by love, they cluster into churches, or gangs, border areas between gangs are bloody. Every gang needs an ivory tower, and leaders on top of their ivory towers arbitrate the interests of their gangs. A gang without a leader is a mob. The very fact that they are a mob indicates that they are not bound by love. They are not baptized. A leader could be a representative or a dictator. What happened in my case is that my mob tried to bring my arbitration down to their interests and I tried to bring their interests up to the level of the discussion. By quitting and passing them over to another leader I confessed that either I don't understand them, or they don't understand me, or I look down at them, or I look down at myself, or that I think that they look down at me. The truth perhaps is that I don't believe anybody has the right to anything. You don't have the right to live at the first place. Which basically indicates that I am Jesus Christ. I am here because it happened. The interesting thing is, I am Jesus Christ with the halo around his head, not the one on the cross. I am a self-proclaimed god, a "good" god. The fetish inside me is freedom-versus-life. A trade-off or a scale. But that's why we couldn't understand each others. Because it is freedom-versus-slavery, not freedom-versus-life. Got it! It seems that for me life is slavery. Slavery to the laws of physics. Kinematics. These same laws dictate that freedom is all about getting a pass to step onto other lives. So the fetish inside me can be love-versus-life. Economics is then the science of picking objects in a manner that trades-off risks with gains. Political economy. Abstraction. An analytical system, not a synthetic system, of life. But let's get back to the point. Am I living within a gang or a mob? Well, even if they are not bound by love, they may be bound by communication. A monopoly over communication. Violence, through which you can create synthetic rules that serve no purpose other than preserving the group. Long term planning. Dogs, that make it hot on the short term and dry on the long term. Making the risks of total war more probable and the survival of the ivory tower more necessary, perhaps more than the sheep need, want, or deserve! These are synthetic laws, written in books, rather than analytical laws that stem from objective reality. The shepherds on their ivory towers have their own laws. The shepherd has his own dog, bred and trained to be the leader of all dogs. The shepherd is the captain and the chief dog is the executive officer. President and CEO. The CEO is trained to lead the dogs. If the president is absent the CEO acts president by manipulating his dogs. Through that layer of abstraction, the CEO preserves the group AND arbitrates with other groups, indirectly through manipulation of his group, or directly, by communicating with other CEOs. What I didn't get is that my dogs don't want an acting president, they wanted a CEO. By passing them over to a former CEO I pre-emptively interrupted their revolutionary orgasm. During jail time I switched positions, becoming an acting vice president in absentia, and my candidate remained acting vice CEO in exile. The elected shepherd was president and CEO at the same time, and it didn't work out. He is old and exhausted. He abstained to jail and became CEO in custody, with the old shepherd being president in custory (and later under house arrest). A sheep and a dog approached me to negotiate for their interests. A dog is a dog, a sheep is a sheep. A trained dog is loved by the sheep and respected by dogs. (I will get back to this later). But this is a wounded dog; a fallen angel. He is now sitting in the shadow of his ivory tower, licking his wound like a cat. And nothing a cat craves more than a kitten to play with in the shadow of a sunny day. Perhaps it is a tiger that is inside that wounded dog. A not-so-tamed tiger. A kitten is but a petit tiger. She is awesome, she was created to be loved, and make people cheerful and happy. A trained dog, even a wounded one, is trained to maintain discipline. He loves to play but he is too preoccupied to do so. If he becomes a tiger he is destined to either get tamed, chuckled, killed, or disabled. He knows that. The role of the kitten is to push him to the limit to make him spit out the untamed tiger inside him and become a lion. And she would become the lionness, together with the other kittens. And sud the bitches (female dogs). The thing they probably didn't know is that the fetish inside me was a pony, not a tiger. A rational idealist, not a rational lover like John the Baptist. Dogs serve a purpose, but they don't do heavy processing. They can't run for long distances. They are territorial. They are dangerous when they are wounded. A pony makes good use of his petit size, and his heritage. He can play with kittens, manage dogs, follow the shepherd abroad, and doesn't have to bend his neck that much to eat grass, so productivity comes naturally, and the output is under control. Dogs also produce manageably, but their production is probably less valuable. And kittens. Never forget about kittens. Flowers and butterflies. My ivory tower was nothing but my neck. The year I spent in jail I have become a pony again. It was a good journey. But now it seems that they expect me to become a muslim. To distill the serpent's poison off me. The liberalism poison. The idea that all people are equal even though they are not the same. The thing about a pony is that it can survive in the wilderness, perhaps not as a full fledged horse, but we also don't see a lot of wilderness out there. It is a tradeoff. A lover and a hater. An ambivert like people say. Horses like a tap on the back, but it seems that I am expected to shorten my neck (be less ambitious), to soften my voice (less enthusiastic), and to stop jumping over the fence (less extrovert). More sociable and less militant. They treated me like a social guy, a bee that moves from one flower to another, and expected me to give them honey, but I didn't. It seems that what actually happened from the moment I started my romance journey is that bees started stinging me. I wasn't moving from one flower to another, I was receiving one sting after another. When I wrote down my first novel what came out wasn't honey, it was poisoned blood. A combination of iron from abroad with poison from home. The result was tad disturbing. I tried the best to make it as soft as possible. The first revolution seemed to my mob like "I am ready to be independent", like a teenager Virgin Mary, and the second one seemed like "I am ready to accept god's message", like a jesus christ. What it turned out is that the first one was "I can't breath with all these bees around me, I am taking the risk", and the second one was like "It worked, I am alive, let's take it one step further." By sending me to jail I was supposed to realize that I am endebted to the flowers and to the kittens and to the Mohammedan and to the elder generation, not to hot shorts and Hollywood. Independence is to find god. Then by writing the novel I was supposed to say what god I found. To report on my journey finding truth. I was supposed to play the role of a typical Sufi who escaped the dirty Africa to seek beauty among blonds, and my rejection of blonds and liberalism is because of my inferiority complex and weak personality. Simba. An interesting subject for kittens. If I am not so, let's pretend that I am and act based on that, like ostriches do. Now I am supposed to stop the silly game from going on by cutting my poison supply. How to do that? But avoiding bees. It seems that the intelligencia insists to tie both tracks. If I am studying humanities side-by-side with computer science, then both tracks need to be related together. Anyways, let's get back to the topic. Rational idealist, like miss columbia. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free." A generous host of life. Rational idealism. Jesus with a book and a halo effect. A public key without a private key. You can tell that I am the one who wrote this essay, this is my style of reasoning, but you will never know why I wrote it. The problem with having a public key without a private key is that not only people know that I am the one writing this, but it also means that certain people can send me messages that only I and them can read, I mean those who already gave me their private keys and secret key. I am accepting other peoples' love and hatred while giving them all idealistic responses. Basically, I am a social mercenary. I am with you as long as you love me. Other mobs knew that, from my discussions on web forums. If you don't want violence I won't give you violence. Also, I am a dreamy guy. Someone who loves life as a whole, as an idea. Make life beautiful for him and he will be yours. Keep giving him quality seeds and you will reap quality fruits. Math seeds, theoritical computer science and theoritical political sciences. And don't forget about kittens, kittens with hot shorts and kittens with headscarves. Your brain and your testicles. What is the difference? Fertility is an abstract concept. But who am I? I am a middle class outcast. The base of the pyramid let me build my own ivory tower while my colleagues were doing public relations. The base of the pyramid are the veins of the system through which blood flows from one organ to another. Some blood cells carry info, some are anti-bodies, and some are there to preserve the blood itself. But the middle class is static. Relatively static. The brain of the system I guess. I guess the government is the heart of the system, and together with the brain they make the body vibrant. Some areas of the brain are specialized in analytical, symbolic reasoning, and I guess some people have this part more active than others, and such activity is not necessarily predictable. It is tad deeper than a simple reflex agent. Notice also that there is a difference between being smart and being rational. Smart people are good at doing symbolic reasoning, but symbolic reasoning deals with -you know- symbols. And life is not about symbols, or at least it is too complex be modelled easily in symbols. A smart guy may suppress his instinct in favor of learning how to live in a world governed by instinct where everybody claims that they are smart in practice and he is smart in theory. This could be true, but not because they are smarter but because they are more fault-tolerant, in some sense. It is actually a mixed blessing. An idealist would imagine the girl next door as the center of *the* universe if this makes sense to his system of logic. Like Jesus on the cross; a typical suicide bomber: love me. An irrational idealist is a typical suicidal person or a poet, like Romio or Antonio: the girl next door is the center of *my* universe: I love her. I guess the rational idealist is as I said Jesus with a book and a halo effect: I love you. "You are the center of my universe." A rational lover is the combination of those three. "I love you; love me; I love her." The book; Jesus; Muhammad. Combined together. When Jesus comes to you carrying a book and saying "I love you" with a halo effect around his head; you should know that this is actually Abraham, the son of Muhammad, and also his grandfather. He loves his father but he doesn't take him seriously, and he thinks that everybody around him is an idiot because everybody around him either hates Muhammad or idolizes Muhammad. Abraham have learnt not to take those people seriously. He says "I love you". This is awesome, and he may be true to his belief, but then keep moving away and he will extend his boundaries after you to show you that he loves you, then one symbol after another will enter his life, possibly from different life systems. "I love you." Ok, but define "love"! Would you worship me? No. How about me? No. How about me? No. At some point he will be the common factor among all these different life systems; by rationalizing their differences. like Aaron. They didn't realize that, as I said, they expected me to be virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus on a cross. Did they knew I already wrote a book? I don't know. But by the time I went to jail it was obvious that I was Abraham not Virgin Mary. More of a brain than a heart. A pony that learnt to suppress instinct in order to survive all the pressure of the dogs around me. The god-wanna-be's. Someone had to tell me that the dogs are not as harmful as I thought, but nobody did. Blood plays a neutral role in this game, but at a certain point, the whole body panics and goes irrational, like orgasm. To avoid this, some part of the brain needs to decide when to masturbate to avoid irrational orgasm. We need a fetish. If I am abraham, then I have to be thrown in fire, and I have to survive fire. A full Jesus lifecycle. Preached, lured, crossified, and resurrected. Ignored, patronized, fought, and won. Remember, they think I am a Jesus: "a love-me suicide bomber," born from a Virgin Marry: "an independent-wanna-be teenager," when in fact I was Abraham: "I-love-you with a book and a halo effect". So now it is time to crossify this Jesus. Get him torn between us and his ivory tower, so that Muhammad comes. What happened is that I was looking down at them: I love you. And they acted like I was saying: love me. The truth is, to prove to them that I love them, I kept entertaining their childish whining like a nurse. Like a youthful man dealing with his old parent's mess. It is Abraham, gentlemen, the prince of logic; what do you expect? It is easy to misinterpret this as "Love me." But that was the theory part. I guess the practical part was when my actual identity got revealed. Instead of crossifying me, they threw me into fire. Where did the fire come from? And why? Well, John the Baptist. He is "I am the special girl next door." He is the "she-and-I." The royal "We." We-versus-you, when speaking to some of the mob, or we-versus-him, when speaking about a candidate representative of the mob. Alientation. You act against the interests of "us", which means that "we" have enemies. There comes "them," a hypocrytical definition of the mob as the anti- of another group; and there comes anti-idolatory: a sperm without an egg. Moses is a half-idol, a broken idol that can get easily idolized itself, or can be used to create an idol. It is extremely dangerous. During their irrational orgasm, my mob kept giving me Immanuels, and I kept breaking them because none of them was the manifestion of my John. They were all idols for me, when in fact it is that none of them was my idol. So you are all enemies of "us". My political candidate was an idol, a nobel criminal. If you guys want an idol, at least get a real idol. So he is the guy you need. But now my sperms are everywhere. I don't care, good bye. There comes the fire. The body goes pre-emptively irrational, without giving birth to Imanuel; without deeds that testify the words. Imanuel is supposed to be the manifestation of the word. Not an idol, not the manifestation of a fetish. I assume that Imanuel is the "us." Moses is the sperm of Abraham. Born of a father without a mother. Moses here, Moses there. At some point Abraham can't see anything around him except Moses. He can't realize that these are his sperms. The more false Imanuels I get, the more Johns I fetishize, which means more synthetic lives, more lies, giving birth to more Moses. Incomplete idols everywhere. Abraham breaks down all the false idols except one. One that he made himself. The one true Moses. He is now mature enough after a long chase with dogs and fire. Moses is now a wounded horse. A hero almost idolized by the group, while the idol he gave them is considered a fetish. It takes Moses a kitten to fight back. The kitten is someone who read his words. She received all Abraham's sperms. All his Moses. She is supposed to be the thesis of his fetishized John the Baptist. "The special girl next door." The complement of Abraham that he craved but never got. His first love. When I was Abraham they expected me to be Jesus, and they got Asia: a drama queen raising up a scarred Moses while pampering her mob. "I love you" instead of "love me". When I was the revenant Moses they expected me to be Abraham, and they got Saint Anne. An introvert, humble Sufi, not the lust-driven philospher I used to be. Again people can't wait for Muhammad to show up. If Muhammad is not the successor of Jesus, then he will be the successor of Abraham. It has to happen. But Abraham is an anti-thesis; a Jesus with a book without a cross and without a fight, so who is the thesis of Abraham? It is Allahom actually. The ideal. Now the kitten tries to tame me by making me worship her. To destroy John the Baptist inside him, the untamed tiger, the royal "we", the paranoid alienation fetish that arrogantly disrespects the father and all religious people, and replace it with a tamed tiger, a rationalist who doesn't believe in sacred marriage, but is a manifestation of goodness without god. Make the John inside Abraham become Muhammad, a good atheist, Abraham's words in flesh and blood. (Is this like making Abraham idolizes his father, his words? what would be of Abraham then? I guess he would become Muhammad the son, not Muhammad the father. A stable lion, not a tiger). But again this is not Abraham she is dealing with. Not the trained dog who fetishizes sacred marriage. It is the revenant Moses. Everybody awaited his arrival with anticipation. They gave him two kittens actually, not one. A proclaimed christian who is supposed to treat him like a Virgin Mary (Hager) and a proclaimed Jew who is supposed to treat him like a Moses (Sarah). Kittens will make him surrender his rationalism, and reach orgasm giving birth to Immanuel. "Us". The group in flesh and blood. Irrational love without fetishes or idols. Neither the half-idolized politician Moses, nor the rational gangster John the Baptist. But again, somebody should tell them that this is not Abraham, and it is not John the Baptist that is being fetishized. It is Allahom. If Abraham is a self-proclaimed good god (or goddess), the revenant Moses is an apathetic atheist. His fetish is probably his ancestor Abraham. He masturbates on his own past glory, while receiving (fake?) disrespect, disregard, and humiliation. Eventually Moses throws out his snake and Allahom has fulfilled the mission he has been fetished for. The truth is, I have been always a Muhammad, and gradually I evolved into Abraham. Muhammad is a Sufi tortured by his love for kittens and alienated by his disregard of dogs. Abraham is a pony who strives to be a giraffe. If Allahom is Abraham's ideal (global peace) and John the Baptist is his fetish (sacred marriage), Muhammad is a typical worshipper who loves women and fears Allah. It is as simple as that. He dares not even to question what he worships. It makes sense, and everybody seems to take it for granted, and there are not many plausible alternatives, so what other options does he have? Let's get things done, in religion. It wasn't actually until I had a serious technical interest in computers that I switched the get-it-done mentality from humanities to programming. As religion turned into practice instead of faith, the meaning of such practices kept decaying in my mind. Then I was exposed to Christians, Shia, Atheists, Materialists, Jews, Nationalists, Communists, and all sorts of heretics leading me eventually to be the Abraham I became. A fire-fighter. A pony acting defensive watchdog. A security council. But before Moses fulfills his mission he was scarred again by Sarah and Hager. Moses is all about scars. He was born in a battle field of ideas, not on a sofa dining with other philosophers as Abraham was. He is experienced enough not to waste his time chasing false idols. He actually idolizes himself. A jealous anti-idolatory instead of a rational idealist. He is whatever you consider sacred. Do you guys worship Muhammad? I am Muhammad. So now, not only a pragmatist, but also a pragmatist utilitarianist. It is good. Someone said before that part of maturity is to make peace with the establishment. If you can't make peace with the establishment, ignore them. If they don't let go, pretend you take them seriously. If they don't show any signs of recognition for you, pretend you don't recognize yourself either. Whatever makes them happy. Moses is all about "them". Broken idols. False gods. Fake Immanuels. Fake "us". Fake irrational lovers. He is still loyal to his candidate. Moses and Aaron make a good team. They both complement each others, like the ideal Allahom complements Abraham. Moses is a professional politician, not a philosopher, though not necessarily experienced enough with state affairs. At least not as Aaron is. He is a politician not a statesman. His ivory tower is still there. Other ivory towers started to ACK his snake, as well as his people. Are we a mob or a gang? Not until John the Baptist comes that we are a gang. When we become bound by rational love. "We are one". One life system. A fetish is an abstraction that if realized will eliminate the need for an idol. Its conception in the brain is the reason why the brain holds on the idea of idolatory. An idol is a manifestation of a fetish, crafted for a purpose. If we can't preserve the group through instinctive, irrational choices, we may need an idol, or we may install a fetish in peoples' minds. A tautum-taboo couple. The early sacred bond between Moses and Aaron materializes John the Baptist as a fetish (rational love) and replaces it with Abraham as a fetish (rational idealism). The success of Moses and Aaron, bound by rational love, in materializing Abraham's rational ideals means ... what? Have we reached peace. I don't know. What is the difference between Moses and Aaron. Enthusiasm versus experience. Risk-taking versus wisdom. Politics versus statesmanship. Militancy versus charisma. Anti-idolatory versus idolatory. Yep. Again, if you guys seek an idol, at least get a real idol. Together, Moses and Aaron eliminate idolatory and make Abraham's ideals realized. But that's at the global level. War and peace are about statistics. But at the personal level, what actually matters is safety and comfort. And I still hold to the idea that power and intelligence are the keys to safety and comfort. One way of achieving this is to do nothing. Life itself becomes a purpose, not a means. The game is meant to be continued forever not won. Which game? And what should I do with my ivory tower, which is now like a penis that erects whenever necessary? First thing to be done is to reverse-engineer my decisions. Why am I doing what I am doing? It seems that it is related to progress. It seems that I am making progress more and faster than the society can handle. Also, it seems that by avoiding popular social networks for five years I am showing disrespect of my peers. I don't think either is correct. I just moved from "I and you" to "them" to "we". Abraham, Moses, John. But what is the difference between "we" and "us"? I guess "us" is a word that is never pronounced except when talking to/about a third party. Otherwise, why use the word "we" unless someone is trying to impose his opinions on the rest of the group? The concept of marriage as we see in movies is a middle class concept, and it seems that the base of the pyramid doesn't find it very agreeable. John the Baptist is the royal "we", the paranoid alienation arrogance that shows no respect to love except rational love. The only love that is acceptable has to be: "I love you; love me; I love her." Basically, be part of my life in this and that regards, let me be part of your life in this and that regards, we share a life in this and that regards. Public key/Private key cryptography, without secret keys. Middle class marriage basically creates a group within the group. A subgraph within the larger social graph, preserved through (and thus perpetuating) property ownerships. The base of the pyramid trade mostly in emotions (and thus, ironically, are more vibrant). Friendship and exchange of ideas and thoughts is a black box for me. The intelligencia manages that through a map of the social network. Relationships and transactions have to make sense from the perspectives of both the public social network as well as the private social network; that is, it has to be rational and look rational. Biologically (semantically?) correct and logically (syntactically) correct. Now we have two life systems within the larger life system. But neither of them explain why the larger system exists. There is something common between both subsystems which is water. In fact, this is probably the main common factor among all subsystems of the larger system. Water symbolizes love. Without water the system is destined to disintegrate. Give me your seeds then reap what you sow, such is water. The larger body is not eternal. It came to existence because, at some point in the past, water invited a seed and that seed accepted the invitation and yeilded this body. One day this body will pass it over to another seed and so on. So the water in this body, the main source of life in it, is like a Jesus on a cross inviting seeds from elsewhere. You see, this seduction is what distinguishes life from death. Love. If you don't want to be loved you are not alive. The brain is like Jesus with a book and a halo effect. I love you. I did politics with my brain and romance with my body. That was Abraham, torn between his intellectual needs and his bodily needs. His ideals and his instincts. My political candidate resolved this issue: a mind- and soul-mate. Moses and Aaron, living on past glory. But together they realized Abraham's ideals. If not now will be at some point in the future. At least "we" made the first step. Good team work. Abraham's ideals in flesh and blood, masturbating on his own success. The rational love fetish materialized into, not just the half-idolized Moses, but the full Idol Abraham, back to where he was before the revolution. This time recognized not only by other ivory tower, but also by his own people, and above all, himself! The tough political transition period is almost over. The question now is, which affiliations will I preserve. Technical progress, political discussions, former colleagues, former ronamces, neighbors, and direct relatives. Who gets a pass into my life, because, again, that was the source of most of the violence I have been subjected to. The more dogs I get rid of, and the more jails I break, the closer I get from a freedom-versus-life fetish to a love-versus-life fetish. From idealism to love. From a conflict between the brain and the heart to a conflict between the body and the heart. Less idealism and less supression of instinct. Less of a god and more of a cunt. Freud said that the death drive (freedom, love, etc) stems from the fear of castration. The potential of having a sterile future. Either intellectually or sexually. Typical Zacharia. When does this death cycle stop? When Zacharia's prayer gets answered. A uni-sex person. A gay. John the Baptist in a single person, not as a Moses-Aaron. But how could this end be reached? Is it when you have the body of Jesus and the mind of Abraham? Is that true? Should it be "I am" instead of "I am the girl next door" or "I am the special girl next door"? Is it when the "we" becomes "us"? When you are not just Abraham's ideals in flesh and blood, fetishizing John the Baptist, but the group in flesh and blood. Life in flesh and blood. A god not a self-proclaimed god, and not an idol. John is "we", Immanuel is "us". Which one comes first? I think John is the one who guids Jesus from Abraham to Immanuel. From the condescending "I love you" to the proud "god with us". Love me? Ok, but why? Not because I love you, but because god is with us. Faith. How could that be? Death versus life is not a fetish, it is rationalism. I guess a fetish is needed when rationalism is absent, or is not enough. Abraham sees his people as a "we" not a "We". A people, not *the* people. They want him to be a lion king. Not a tiger, or a watchdog, or a horse. Because we can't be a royal without a king. And we want to be royals. But why can't Abraham see his people as a "We". Abraham doesn't see rationalism around him. He doesn't see sheeps and dogs; only kittens/beggars. Sexy girls and talkative people. They probably see him so as well. A sexy talkative person. A sexy tiger or a talkative dog. But what makes him special is that he is actually a horse. Hardworking guy. The problem is, the very fact that he underestimates them indeed undervalues them. He believes that they are not productive enough to worth respect. Someone should tell him that survival is not about productivity. He probably doesn't see that. Marx talked a lot about socially-necessary labor. Labor, just labor, is not always as worthy as it seems. 10 hours of this labor is not equivalent to 10 hours of that labor. Not all labor is equal. How about management, consulting, communication, etc. You say we are beggars because we aren't as productive as you are? Ok, then we say you are a slave. And so you should be treated. And if we can't make it we'll fake it. You like kittens; kittens are all about playfulness. Let's play. Then we'll beat you like a slave, and we'll say it is because you mistreat kittens. We are all kittens (at least not beggars). A kitten says "love me", and Abraham says "I love you". His fetishized John strives to make the two one. We love each others. But because he doesn't see a royal we, and the kitten wants a royal we, this union will never happen. Now we move to the next step. If your productivity keeps undervaluing us, we will make you unproductive. We will beat you up whenever you build something, and we'll take that thing for free, and let's see what you will do. If you don't value our communication skills, moral violence, how about our physical violence. If you undervalue the freedom we give you, how about our love? And nothing after love except death (right?). Abraham's ego will not handle being beaten to work. Work is dignity. He would prefer to be idle. Moral violence rather than physical violence. Jail rather than pain. Ok, whatever you like. If you want moral violence we'll give you more moral violence. But what is the end game? A lion? A territorial patriot stretching under a tree in a sunny day as meat is being thrown to him for granted. A military personnel. If I can't be a lion, and no one accepts me to be otherwise, at least be a lioness. An army officer rather than a marine. Maintaining a den instead of an ivory tower. If we can't tame this tiger let him be a kitten and the kitten shall be a lioness. First you should learn how to deal with kittens. They don't need a male selling himself to them. They want a male who values their beauty without approaching them. They serve an important purpose in life; that is, to make life more beautiful and desirable. That's all. I already knew that, but the news is that you should treat *our* kittens similarly. And the way they would teach me that is by treating my like, guess what, a kitten. If you can't be a lion, be a lioness. I should also know that we are not beggars. Productivity isn't what we want, nor glory, nor food, nor peace, nor sex, nor love, nor democracy. "We" want freedom. Freedom for the revolutionaries was the right to play. To practice violence, to be actors not objects. Controlled violence (that is, monopoly over internal and external communications) is what preserves the group if the group isn't united by love. With all the available information technology gadgets they saw it was time to do it. After violence comes love. For me freedom is about making life choices. It is a moon behind bars. Democracy is the idol that realizes this fetish. Again, someone should have told me that life is not as far as the moon is, and the dogs are not made of iron, they are made of fire, and some water is enough to extinguish them. Some love is enough. You don't need a missile to reach the moon. Enough building missiles and ivory towers. Just look at the moon. That's all you actually want, and that's all that the moon is useful for. So what is the path to Immanuel - the irrational love? How to be Abraham's words, not just his ideals, not a self-proclaimed god? How to be the uni-sex John, not the homosexual John, the alientation paranoid? It is not by breaking idols; not by creating new Moses, masturbating on past glory and almost idolizing himself. It is by achieving dreams. By extinguishing fire. Replacing rational idealism with irrational love, directly without intermediate steps. Without war. Will this kitten become a tiger or a lioness? A jungle's master/slave dialectic, or a queen? Or is it destined to remain a horse, an ambitious enthusiastic extrovert? I probably love to be a horse; probably that's what my genes are programmed to be. But sometimes, from a tactical perspective, it is useful to be rationally-irrational, to masturbate. If people around you are abusing your rationalism, you'd better start acting "rationally-irrational". By knowing when it is okay to make incosistent choices. But beware that you will probably meet an immense amount of violence. Violence that you never dreamt of. People won't let you even make jokes. They will beat you till you bleed if you do so. Why? Because there is an entire system built around you. You are the only trustworthy person out there. Then you will be forced to pick the other alternative of abusing the rational system that you built yourself to the point that you make them the ones who want to change it. To be strictly rational till the point they feel like they are in jail. Then they will go rationally-irration. They will masturbate; but by then they have realized that the jail is on both sides of the bars, and that the game has to be a win-win game; it can't be rational-versus-irrational forever. Mama won't be always there to change your diapers for free and endure your cries whenever she doesn't; being it Asia or Saint Anne. But then what? What is a win-win game? In a perfect world, there should be no ivory towers, no jails, no dogs. No trademarks, no secret keys, no private keys. Just life, without games. Without love. Without secret keys or private keys, and no ivory tower to act as a certifier or a guarantor for generating secret/private keys. But then, where does games come from? Is private ownership a human nature? If not, is it necessary? Idols, fetishes, synthetic lives, dogs, oracles, fire, etc; all of these maintain Earthly (imported/invented) subjects of desire. If none of these exist, there only remains natural subjects of desire; godly subjects of desire as some may call them. Ivory towers, analysts, idealists, architects, etc; all of these exist because Earthly subjects of desire exits. The leader needs a purpose, together they preserve the group. If the only purpose available is synthetic, does this mean that the group deserves to perish? Let's ask onself this question, if one can't find oneself a natural purpose; should one perish? Natural instinct answers no. Not all people are suicidal by nature/instinct. By fulfilling more dreams (orgasms), and not wasting time breaking idols, one may quickly eliminate as many synthetic desires as possible to liberate as much suppressed instincts as possible that are buried under the ivory tower. This is equivalent to the case when the certifier is making as much gains as possible off the encryption business instead of finding another *natural* business. Let's project this on our daily life. The first life system one encounters is the womb of one's mother. It is a life support system. Once one leaves that system one moves to another, more sophisticated life support system. During one's teenage one starts to get acquainted with other life support systems. Neighbors, colleagues, relatives, etc. Around the end of teenage, one starts to join the work force, either immediately or through higher education. Now it is the public intelligencia that holds your back. Around one's thirties, one moves more towards the public sphere, becoming more administrative than labourous. Like a public intelligencia officer, and officers rank above each others. Depending on the past thirty years, one either becomes the center of one's native life system, or on its edges. A lover or a hater. A hater either hates the group or is hated by the group. Some life systems are centered around the idea that love is precious and makes others envious, so love should be concealed. Those who show up on screens cursing this nation are usually crypto-lovers, while those who strive to foster progress within the nation are considered haters, even if -and usually while- they raise the nation's flag. Those are killers; in the literal sense or in the rheutoric sense, as in killing people out of work. Haters probably don't see themselves so. They see lovers as jobless parasites. Reactionaries. Light up a kandle instead of cursing the dark a hundred times; so said the wise man. But then lovers say that if you really love someone you would accept them with all their imprefections, even their weaknessess. The fact that you seek change implies either explicitly or implicitly that you are unsatisfied with this nation. So seek love somewhere else. You are still one of us though, but join the public sphere of another life system. Maybe you will become part of their work force, or even have an intimate relationship with them. That would be a heterosexual marriage. Lovers, immanuels, are gays. They love their people. They marry their people. Homosexuals though, insist that their people should marry the other people. That we and them should love each others. Global peace. "Peace with the enemy!" Homosexual is the synthesis of gayness and heterosexuality. A gay marrying the other people. Loves his people and craves the other people. Or hates himself and loves the other people. Either we (not We) go for them, or they come for us. However you see it. Conditional love. Conditional respect. Whenever one moves from one life stage to another, one is supposed to resign, not quit. In other words, one has to settle it down with the source and the destination, or they do that themselves or whatever. Stale social networks are problematic here. Depending on the rate one is making progress, one may end up quitting without realizing that. When was the last time you saw your intelligencia officer? If your intelligencia officer can't handle you, their boss has to do so, if not, then their boss, and so on. At some point, the issue will escalate, you are not one of us anymore, we won't hold your back, so don't do us any services. They will divorce you unilaterally, aborting your progress towards the homosexual marriage. The divroce may be justified by the fact that you wouldn't have been to the other life system without crossing through our life system, and by doing such reckless progress you are socially engineering us into either accepting a premature marriage or letting you rob our public intelligencia. In other words, who pays for the resources allocated by the public intelligencia to support you from the moment of your birth till you moved to the other life system? But since you are a homosexual, you wouldn't mind being here or there. You would prefer being there, but you still love your home, unlike heterosexuals. Heterosexuals form a private social network that promotes progress by hating us, not by hating others. They are an exclusive club. Once your marriage is aborted, you return to your mob. You said you loved us, but we think that you lie. You just climbed on the shoulders of our elite. You just crossed through our public sphere and the public sphere of other life systems to reach their work force without our permission. So what do you guys want in return? Love. You don't love us any more, and others won't accept you before you resign, so go live in the desert. You just moved from "I love you and crave them" (we go for them) to "I hate myself and love them" (they come for us). You see us as parasites. Instead of joining the workforce for a decade or two before becoming socially accepted, we acted as "smart social engineers", trying to make a living off manipulating people instead of serving them. You don't buy into our propaganda about socially necessary labour. You are a "Marxist analyst", even if you don't know and you don't care what that word means. You are the anti-thesis of our hetero-versus-gay synthetic thesis. You came from a "proletariate" background (lol, did I spell it correctly?) but you still work for national pride, tautoms and pagan values (Is anti-idolatory pagan?), thus placing our synthetic state into test. You are a National Socialist. A Nazi who inherited an inferiority complex towards Rome from our Saxon ancestors and thus ended up buying into Roman ideals as if this would make your uncivilized people surpass Rome. You socialized for long with the Romans till you not just loved them but actually started acting on their behalf. "The girl next door is special". That's your message to us. Love thy enemy. It is not adultry; it is love. A typical homosexual who tolerates differences like a hetero but is still unique like a gay. Then your message has become "I am the special girl next door". Now it is rape. The enemy considers you a schezophrenic father-wanna-be who believes that he is treating his paranoid people into independence of victimhood through moral relativism (not nihilism though). Your people consider you a merceneray though; a "universal soldier." You work for love, and others won't accept your love until you resign. Love your neighbor, not love your enemy. Until we and them reach an agreement. When was the last time you saw your intelligencia officer. You are effectively quitting us, not resigning. Your people and the other people aborted the very marriage that they let happen before it reaches its ultimate end, because this is rape, not marriage. You not just promoted your enemy to us, you actually acted on their (and thus on our) behalf trying to make a deal that nobody asked you to make. Alright. I am retiring. But this is even worse. You not just discredited us, but you are also discrediting yourself, thus socially engineering both of us into creding you as an ambassador. How to fix this? First, we'll beat you up into expiation; life-threatening experience will make you forget all your idealism in a moment. It is God, boy! God, not Allahom! Good boy! Now it has to be our God, Allah, not just "any God". The Allah that we taught you about before you join the work force. It is whatever you read before you start writing. Before you become "a thing". Instead of retaliating our violence you start buying into our spirituality propaganda, like a civilized hostage suffering Stockholm-syndrome among barbarians. You just bought our book; not us, just our book. Animism (Is self-idolatory animist?). Guilt rather than debt. Responsibility rather than gratitude. If opium is the language, let there be opium. Instead of acting like a Roman father, now you are a poisonous Jewish mother. A bowing hypocrite. A crypto-Jew carefully dealing with *an* unenlightened population. You no longer buy into ideals, but you don't love "us" either. Ok, you enlightened man, if you no longer buy into their ideals, we won't let you go public, since it is "their" ideals that gave you pass to their job market through the public sphere. This is a mixed blesssing since your rape charges are still pending. But also since you don't love us, thus not trading with us using the only commodity that we afford, we won't let you realize that you are being discredited by others. Enjoy your wealth in your grave after you live a mediocre life that you deserved because you couldn't emancipate yourself from mental slavery, from the idea that "arbeit macht frei." You never gave us credit for being there, just being there. We had let you see us every morning in the streets and in the media. We shaped your personality and this couldn't be quantified. All we wanted is your unconditional love. To feel grateful for seeing us every morning when you wake up to go to school; even if we taught you nothing at school. Monotheism, preferably irrational. To love us and crave us. To seek our unconditional love just like you give us unconidional love. How to make this happen? Replace his superstitious animie, Allah, with an idol. Make him the Muhammad that he used to be. Figure out what this narcissist Israelite fetishizes whenever he looks himself in the mirror, then give him a bigger idol to tame him into a hetero; one day he will become a gay. But this "Israelite" is not really an Israelite. He is not a Samson that a Delila would deceive into bringing down the Solimon temple in which has been trained. He is a "free mason" protestant. The exodus Moses. Muhammad the poet, the grandson of Abraham; not the monastic Muhammad, Abraham's father. There is no temple to bring down; Abraham's ivory tower is but his neck. He never loved Rome. He just told us to love Rome, and just told us that he loved Rome too, but he never did. "We" probably did! He hasn't become a hypocrite by abandoning his Allahom ideals. He *was* a hypocrite by embracing that Allahom. Muhammad, at the first place, is all about becoming. Muhammad is a "he". A lonely shepherd reflecting at night breeze about his own history. An elderly guru narrating wise poetry with a remarkable sense of humor. A Sufi. Hatem on the Nile bridge at night thinking about Zeinab bint Jahsh, the green-eyed angel that captured his (heart?) decades ago as if she might make him forget about his beloved Abraham that he hadn't even conceived, yet; not knowing that she actually gave him his son. She and he would become the fetished John the Baptist in Abraham's mind. "I love you; love me; I love her." But now this is Muhammad the grandson of Abraham, not Abraham's father, for Abraham is a self-proclaimed god with no father. This Muhammad, the exodus Moses formerly raised by Asia among kings, and nursed bitter milk by Saint Anne among mobs, has now become a sherif with blood on his head and it seems that he has managed to ransom himself through wise poetry. From progressive monastic sufism came idealistic philosophy. (Asia, Abraham mistaken for Jesus, a self-proclaimed god). From refuted idealistic philosophy came humble sufism. (The outcast Moses, a scarred self-idolizing womanizer, living on past glory). From agonized rewounded sufism came sufi poetry. (Saint Anne, Sufi marriage between the revenant Moses and Aaron, and mistaken for Abraham). From poetry came Muhammad. Abraham's words, not ideals, in flesh and blood. I love her. Irrational idealism characteristic of a suicidal poet: the girl next door is the center of my universe. Love the neighbor, not love the enemy. A vegetarian, not necessarily a vegan. Finally "he" is a messenger of peace recognized by Rome and Persia and the Saxons and the Golden Hords. Instead of bringing down the temple of Solomon, he came to rebuild it. How about love? People want love. The people want love. Irrational love, please, with some sugar and/or hash. Muhammad's love is peace. Not freedom; it is peace. It is love that is not in conflict with life, for peace can't be comparable to death; thus he believes. First, he gave us progress that we (or We) didn't ask for, and now he offers "us" peace for safety. Someone should tell him that safety comes for free. But he was born to love life, and our life was based on terror. Disdain of terror is a crime in such life system because it entails disdain of synthetic politics; not of politics, but synthetic politics. So here is the deal; let's take terror off the table, by legalizing peaceful atheism. (After all, who was the revenant Moses but an apathetic atheist? You wanted Muhammad; Now I become Muhammad). If Abraham's rational ideals of anti-idolatory is actually pagan, and Moses' self-idolatory and apathetic atheism is animism, then Muhammad's irrational love is idolatry. "He" idolizes good atheism. And people want irrational love; monotheism. But the people are, again, one step behind. When it is finally Muhammad, the exodus Moses, people are still stuck with the revenant Moses. So they get Virgin Mary, with baby Jesus on a mule travelling with Saint Joseph to the safe Egypt. But what kind of game do we get out of peace? Is it a win-win game or a zero-sum game? We are still rational, via rational fear rather than terror, so there still is a game. But this is a military-style regime. Not a "universal soldier", marine-styled regime that is based on a everlasting war of ideas as Abraham envisioned; instead, it is more like a naval regime that is based on a self-restrained, moderately-sociable, slow-yet-steady progress with relatively established rules, typical of a middle class. A fleet, with a captain with an executive officer, a president and a CEO. Pair programming. If we can't turn this school of sheep into a den of lions, at least make it a civilized fleet of dolphins. Muhammad is all about companions, and followers, and kings. He is reverred by kings. But how about followers. Will they get the love that they wanted? Will they be recognized by him? Will he acknowledge their contribution to his life, them being the life support system that embraced him throughout his life invaluably and unquantifiably. Well, not in a direct sense. He seems to be doing his job, as we are enjoying peace. Whenever life turns bad we know that some things are not going well with his work. Then his companions are the means through which people communicate with him. He gets the life we get. If comfortable he gets comfortable, if otherwise he gets otherwise. By following his footsteps we seek guidance, if we can afford to do so, and through his companions we communicate our grievances to kings, grievances that we can't even tell for sure that they are our grievances, for wisdome is a gift that not all people have. If peace realizes his love for us as a public, then his companions also deserve a gift of recognition.

[Suntzu]

Holy krap!

Paragraphs please!

[Saeko]

You expect me to read this Bible of a post?

[Potemkin]

That is the question, is a phrase used by Shakespear in Macbeth (did I spell it correctyl?).

We have only one document known to have been written by Shakespeare, and in that one document he spells his own name three different ways. Lol. The spelling of the English language had not yet been standardised in Shakespeare's time. Even in the mid-17th century, John Dryden was spelling Shakespeare's name as 'Shakespear', which is probably where you (unknowingly) got it from, but the standard modern spelling of The Bard's name is 'Shakespeare'. Nothing else.

Oh, and the line you (partially) quoted is "To be or not to be; that is the question". It's the most famous line in all of English language poetry, and it is from the play Hamlet, not Macbeth.

I stopped reading after that.

[MistyTiger]

Whoaaa that is the worst looking OP I have ever seen!

How is that the Gospel of Paul? It looks more like the ramblings of a guy who cares too much about what others think of him or something.

[Ter]

We have only one document known to have been written by Shakespeare, and in that one document he spells his own name three different ways.

One plausible theory is that Shakespeare was in fact "Sheik Spear", an early Arab immigrant. Like Conrad later on, he wrote in his adopted language.

[anasawad]

@Ter
Its funny because there is actually a clan in Lebanon called spear, or atleast the pronunciation of their name is spear but not sure how its actually spelled.
And they're heavily mixed with Belgian and French descent. Though again many clans and large families in Lebanon are a mixture of either European and Persian or European and Arab blood.

For the OP. I honestly didn't read anything from it. I opened to the last comments, saw Saeko and Suntzu comments. Looked up, was shocked and a little scared, then scrolled back down.


@Sphinx
For fuck's sake dude. Thats exactly 13418 words crammed up each other's asses.
Can you give a little summary or bullet points or atleast give an idea of what the topic is without having to read all of that.

Don't get me wrong. Its not that much reading, but its painful to read it when its in such format.

[B0ycey]

For fuck's sake dude. Thats exactly 13418 words crammed up each other's asses.
Can you give a little summary or bullet points or atleast give an idea of what the topic is without having to read all of that.

Don't get me wrong. Its not that much reading, but its painful to read it when its in such format.

Some dissertations are shorter than this. You have to be bloody commited to the subject in hand to want to read a post this long. And I'm not so I haven't bothered to read any of it. The fact Pote read as far as to the quote he cited is a miracle in itself. I think this is a lesson for anyone who writes an OP. Keep your points short and to the point. Otherwise people won't read your thread.

[One Degree]

Some dissertations are shorter than this. You have to be bloody commited to the subject in hand to want to read a post this long. And I'm not so I haven't bothered to read any of it. The fact Pote read as far as to the quote he cited is a miracle in itself. I think this is a lesson for anyone who writes an OP. Keep your points short and to the point. Otherwise people won't read your thread.

I think @Potemkin must be trying to achieve saint status. I even went back and tried to read far enough to see how far he got. I could not do it. I knew he was a step above us mortals, but I never expected he was this far removed from the rest of us.

[Drlee]

That wall of text has fallen on me and I can't get up....

Potemkin is wise. He absorbs this stuff by osmosis. He is an Internet savant. Good on him for trying.

[Stormsmith]

You mention Paul once, in the title. The next time it shows up, it's in the 2nd posters title. Hummmmmmmmm