Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: It is the same philosophy that culminates in 'wokism'.

Immanuel: Oh, my gosh! How off-base can one guy be! I'm so amused.

Yes, but you assumed, with expressed certainty, that I was wrong when I made mention of the link between Jewish and National Socialist or German nationalist racialism. So I offered just a few of dozens and dozens of quotes, from Jewish sources, that expressed exactly what I said.

If I am on the mark here, can you be so certain that I am off the mark in other assertions I make? I mean, take it as an open question.

Immanuel: Well, there's the proof: you not only don't know what you're talking about, you actually think the dead opposite of the facts. Wokism is Neo-Marxism.

It is true, and beyond doubt, that a major strain in 'wokism' traces back to neo-Marxism. But there is another element and it is strong indeed. It is Christian universalism which, in so many ways, acts against the sort of definitions that we talk about when we talk about Nietzsche. The conversation recently turned to Nietzsche I assume you remember. And it has been suggested -- and I agree -- that you have done a very bad, indeed a wretched, reading of Nietzsche. But how could you, given the adamancy of your own position, have read Nietzsche judiciously?

In my view, Nietzsche points us back from and away from Christian universalism and a sort of mindless egalitarianism, and back into or at least toward harder principled definitions.

So I examined this paragraph:

And so the next deduction follows: what, then, if, say Aryans are the highest current evolved form of mankind, and blacks, Jews, slavs, and other dusky folks are the less-evolved entities that deserve to lose out to the Aryans and die out by survival-of-the-fittest? And if we've done great work selectively breeding things like dogs and cats, why not selectively breed the human race in order to accelerate evolution toward desirable goals? In this way, they convince themselves that not only is racism okay, it's actually wise and scientific; and not only does it benefit the "master race" or the "ubermenschen," but ultimately it advances the human race itself towards its higher and more glorious destiny...Aryanism, and beyond...

And I noticed how deeply what you think and how you see is informed by specifically Christian sensibilities. I admit that it is hard for me to become clear about what I am trying to get at, since I would not wish to redefine or encourage racism and this is not my point. In order to delve into the areas I delve into I have to confront my own backgrounding, my own received ideas.

My point has been more to shine some light on what was going on, and what may still be going on, in the European (or Gentile) world that is in a process of jettisoning Christian-based or Jewish-based metaphysical and ethical ideas. In this sense if you abandon illusion, or false premises, you will have to re-clarify things on realer terms. I am not at all certain that this might not include all sorts of definitions that we now shy away from.

And that is why I referred to *a European grammar of self-intolerance'. If this is a real thing my assumption is that it developed strongly after the catastrophes of the two recent European wars.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Where Nietzsche and I disagree is at the most fundamental level. His whole reasoning requires God to be dead. But Nietzsche never attempted to prove God was dead; he just argued that IF God was dead, certain things followed. And with that, I certainly agree. No God, no morality. Nietzsche and I agree completely about that.

I regret to inform you, and I regret to have to be just one more who aligns his perspective with one that Nietzsche expressed with so much force, that indeed God Is Dead.

But what I mean -- what we mean perhaps -- is that the entire construct that you attempt to represent here -- that -- has died. But has in no sense been buried! And that is the wondrous thing: it courses around in ghostly form. It inhabits old buildings, such as ourselves, and shows itself still powerful.

I am uncertain what happens when even the ghost finally vanishes ...

The entire point here? That if God is to be realized again, and in such a way that all will know that it has a tangible existence, and not a subjectively realized one, it will only be known in the future. Presently, there is no way to explain or to demonstrate God.

In that sense, Brother Immanuel, God is dead.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure the Jews will be equally amused to be "informed" of that.

I asked if you would you like me to offer some proof.

Some proof of amused Jews?

Jerry Seinfeld. Mel Brooks. Milton Berle.

[iambiguous]

Actually, I have; and when the occasion presents itself, my Jewish associates are quite surprised by how much I know. Of course, much of it is derived from ancient, Biblical Judaism, but in many cases, I know more about their traditions and history even than modern Jews know, and they marvel that a goy has any interest in such things.

But what of that?

Again, just out of curiosity, when you and your "Jewish associates" get around to discussing Judgment Day, are you able to persuade them that unless they accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior their souls are damned?

And when they note that Jesus Christ Himself -- God -- was a Jew, do they remind you that it is Christians who have to come around to Judaism on Judgment Day. And, of course, Muslims.

Let the rationalizations begin: https://www.franciscanmedia.org/ask-a-f ... in-heaven/

[Immanuel Can]

...you have built your little edifice on derive from those of Judaism.

That depends: what makes a Jew a Jew? Can you say that somebody who is biologically Jewish ceases to be a Jew if he does not conform to your approved particular cultural package?

Christianity is a belief. If one does not believe what Christianity requires (and we can leave the particulars for the moment), one is not a Christian. Atheism is a belief: if one starts to believe in any kind of God or gods, one ceases to be one. However, Jewishness is not merely a belief, but an ethnicity, a genetic heritage, and a culture. What's your definition of a "Jew'?

...you are really more a wannabe Jew.

No, I'm a goy and a happy one. But to be Jewish is an honourable thing to be.

[Immanuel Can]

Where Nietzsche and I disagree is at the most fundamental level. His whole reasoning requires God to be dead. But Nietzsche never attempted to prove God was dead; he just argued that IF God was dead, certain things followed. And with that, I certainly agree. No God, no morality. Nietzsche and I agree completely about that.

I regret to inform you,...
In that sense, Brother Immanuel, God is dead.

That's not clever, actually.

You've made Nietzsche's mistake, which is to equate "Secular man no longer feels the desire to believe in God," with "There is no God." Nietzsche did it because he assumed "God" was just a concept invented by man, not a reality: no dependency anymore, no God, he thought. But the idea that God was just a concept was merely his assumption, not anything he went about to prove.

So, same error.

If there is an actual God, then man's attitude cannot "kill" Him. That attitude can, however kill man.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You've made Nietzsche's mistake, which is to equate "Secular man no longer feels the desire to believe in God," with "There is no God."

You, my beloved moron, show yourself incapable of understanding even basic concepts. This amazes me.

I did not make any such assertion as you propose. What I said is that in our modern world, for a group of reasons that can be catalogued, the belief in God as a rational activity, and resulting from what is provable and demonstrable, has been rendered impossible. The god-concept has died. Or the conceptual picture of a certain form or rendition of God is simply put no longer possible.

It is not -- not even remotely! -- true that secular man does not desire to believe in God. He may desire to believe with all his heart. But there is only one area or zone that is open to him: that of subjective choice.

So what I say:

What I mean -- what we mean perhaps -- is that the entire construct that you attempt to represent here -- that -- has died. But has in no sense been buried! And that is the wondrous thing: it courses around in ghostly form. It inhabits old buildings, such as ourselves, and shows itself still powerful.

You are an example of a *haunted man* -- a modern possessed by a ghost.

I know that you cannot and will not to understand any of this, but I think it is germane to the larger conversation and surely others do understand, but we who have been extruded on the farther shore of historical processes vis-à-vis Christian religious belief, we cannot turn back! It is not a ground that we can recover. In that sense we are aligned with Nietzsche's situation. We might wish to be re-haunted, and we can at times live through substitutes, but we are forced into different territories of understanding and exploration.

Curiously, and I think tellingly, there is not one person who writes here (except Nick who flew the coup ages back) who is similarly haunted.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That depends: what makes a Jew a Jew? Can you say that somebody who is biologically Jewish ceases to be a Jew if he does not conform to your approved particular cultural package?

Christianity is a belief. If one does not believe what Christianity requires (and we can leave the particulars for the moment), one is not a Christian. Atheism is a belief: if one starts to believe in any kind of God or gods, one ceases to be one. However, Jewishness is not merely a belief, but an ethnicity, a genetic heritage, and a culture. What's your definition of a "Jew'?

...you are really more a wannabe Jew.

No, I'm a goy and a happy one. But to be Jewish is an honourable thing to be.

No, I maintain that you, and within your brand of Christian Zionism, are best understood as a 'wannabe Jew'. It is important, I think, to understand that Christianity set itself up through a radical and virulent opposition to the state religion of Judaism. Christianity is no friend to Judaism. For that reason, and for historical reasons related to the Jewish experience in Europe, Judaism despises both Jesus Christ and Christianity. Yet Christian Zionists declare a perverse form of lealty to ... to what exactly? It is something I grok with difficulty.

The question is a very good one: What makes a Jew a Jew. Those who are Post-Jews have to resort to manuals and remedial texts in order to have it explained to them what a Jew actually is. Because in no sense is it evident. There is for example To Be a Jew: A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life by Hayim H. Donin and Why the Jews? by Dennis Praeger and Joseph Telushkin which more indirectly explains Jewishness through examining opposition to it.

I would only say, and I did only say, that because Judaism is defined racially, and because the racism of National Socialism (and really the racialism of pan-Europeanism generally) is a mirror of Jewish racism, that we have an opportunity to examine the tents of a racialist perspective when we consider the issues with open eyes. That, you idiot, was exactly what I referred to in the former post!

And what I said is that Aryanism -- the European idea-movement that sought to define a cultural and also a genetic lineage that extended back to pre-Christian times and to a vibrant cultural trajectory that is the basis of the European man, Christianity being an overlay -- this corresponds in many ways with Jewish identity and Jewish racialism.

Christianity is a belief. If one does not believe what Christianity requires (and we can leave the particulars for the moment), one is not a Christian.

We will re-cover ground we did cover long ago. I understand your definition. I understand why you say it. I disagree that that is all there is to it. One who grows up in a Christian cultural milieu is also Christian even if he does not practice or even understand Christianity's main tenets.

Everything about Judaism, unless it is strict Orthodoxy which provides the definition of what a Jew is, and more especially when it is Post-Judaism, is intensely problematic in my view. And that is why assimilation is such an enormous problem for Judaism and Jewry.

Can you say that somebody who is biologically Jewish ceases to be a Jew if he does not conform to your approved particular cultural package?

First, I do not have an *approved package* but Donin and Praeger do indeed.

I have a critical position of the essential core of Jewish belief: that of having been *selected* by that metaphysical entity we call Yahwey and given a specific historical mission. Is this antisemitism? Some would say, yes, it is. But that is because when you attack or challenge the core belief-set -- in this case of Judaism but it might apply to any religious structure -- you are naturally perceived as a threat.

So let us review: I begin with a critical position about the fundamentals of Christian belief. My critique gets that much more pointed when I focus on the perversion known as *Christian Zionism*. But then, and this is what happened in my case, I realized that what I was essentially taking issue with is that which you have been tempting Janoah with: that devilish question: Did God select the Jews or the alternative.

I recognize that no one today could be comfortable in an open conversation that touches on these difficult topics. Indeed there are so many signs of upset that such issues are being broached in our culture today.

But why should these things be avoided? In my view they are all crucial issues.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And when they note that Jesus Christ Himself -- God -- was a Jew, do they remind you that it is Christians who have to come around to Judaism on Judgment Day.

It may interest you to know, or perhaps not, that some who had a cynical stance toward Judaism, proposed it possible that Jesus's mother, being from Galilee, could have been of another racial stock. Galilee was a region contaminated by *foreigners* and certainly by un-Orthodox ideas. As some Europeans tried to squirm out from under the imposed constraints of Judaism and Christianity, they devised a strategy of re-defining Jesus as a Gentile. This would make a certain sense given his mission against the state religion.

Can anything good come out of Nazareth? (John 1:46)

[Will Bouwman]

Ah, I see the conversation has turned to Nietzsche. Yer have to put him in context. Nietzsche was a teenager when Darwin published On the Origin of Species. The theory of evolution by natural selection was, to put it mildly, a challenge to any theory that man was created in the image of a divine being. Hence God is dead.

Well, the Origin of Species has been found, of course, to be quite inadequate in various ways, even by modern Evolutionists.

Can you think of a mid-nineteenth century work which hasn't been found inadequate in various ways? It's a simple enough relationship; the more you look, the more you find. With coming on for two hundred years of hindsight, I can't think of any science book the author wouldn't revise in light of intervening discoveries.

But you're right that when it appeared it was a big deal...however, it was not instantly received as necessarily entailing that there was no God. A lot of people were more inclined to say that maybe evolution was the means, but God the Agent nonetheless.

Nietzsche, and everyone else, was presented with an hypothesis that challenged the dominant narrative of the time. As you point out, there were different responses to the theory and, I could add, there have been different responses to the responses. Anyone who takes the theory of evolution seriously is compelled to accept that any truth in the biblical creation story is allegorical rather than historical. If God is He who created the world exactly as the Bible claims, then evolution kills him.

People who don't understand evolution sometimes believe that it implies we will evolve into a superior being, the Ubermensch. We, as common or garden homo sapiens, will be as subservient to them as dogs are to us.

It's a natural deduction. If we were once random atoms, then some rudimentary organism in pond scum, then some kind of fish, then some kind of amphibian, and so on, then evolutionism would seem to suggest that being what we are is, in some important sense, "higher" than that. But then the deduction comes: if the process of evolution got us this far, what's the evidence it won't get us farther? Who's to say that you and I are the most highly-evolved version of the human creature? Who's to say that in another billion years, human beings won't be much more "high" than we are now?

It's not clear yet whether intellect is a long term evolutionary advantage. There are various ways our intellect might destroy us. Global warming, germ warfare, AI. One possibility is a Christian fundamentalist, eager for the rapture, getting their hands on America's nuclear codes. Such a person may not be your kind of Christian, but they are interpreting the same source as you.

Then comes the further deduction: why would evolution proceed at exactly the same pace for all instances of a "species"? Wouldn't it be logical that if something like "survival of the fittest" were the mechanism, then there would always be around a great many specimens of each "species" that were less-than-survival-apt?

It is demonstrably the case that some "instances" are better adapted to their home environment that others. Some instances have adapted to extremes of heat, cold, elevation, humidity and all sorts of subtler pressures. Among all instances, there are "specimens" who but for human compassion and ingenuity would not survive long.

And so the next deduction follows: what, then, if, say Aryans are the highest current evolved form of mankind, and blacks, Jews, slavs, and other dusky folks are the less-evolved entities that deserve to lose out to the Aryans and die out by survival-of-the-fittest?

It's not a deduction, it's a prejudice and someone doesn't understand evolution. Stick an "Aryan" above 16 000ft, at high latitudes, in a desert or jungle and they won't be as fit as the locals.

And if we've done great work selectively breeding things like dogs and cats, why not selectively breed the human race in order to accelerate evolution toward desirable goals? In this way, they convince themselves that not only is racism okay, it's actually wise and scientific; and not only does it benefit the "master race" or the "ubermenschen," but ultimately it advances the human race itself towards its higher and more glorious destiny...Aryanism, and beyond...

There's a logic to it, and all sorts of slobs have persuaded themselves that they are an example of the Ubermensch, but it's a load of bollocks.

That's the kind of logic that goes there. But you can see it comes as a product of Evolutionism itself.

In the same way that the Ku Klux Klan is a product of Bible studies. Again: if you give different people the same information, they will interpret it differently. Any belief that genocidal nazism is an inevitable product of belief in evolution has to account for the believers in evolution who happen not to be genocidal nazis.

Hitler's preoccupation with breeding and genetics was not at all accidental; he knew what project he was on, and why the death camps were worth expending tremendous quantities of men and resources he actually desperately needed for places like the Eastern Front. His was a utopian, evolutionary, genetic-engineering project, in which he saw himself as the saviour of the human race. And, of course, you see that preoccupation in people like Josef Mengele, as well, whose ghastly experiments often aimed at the same "race affirming" goals.

If you are trying to persuade me that Hitler was a bad man, you are pushing against an open door. Many Germans, like you, believed that the "supreme good of man" is to know God through Jesus Christ, and in fact every member of the wehrmacht was issued a belt on which the buckle said Gott mit uns, which is what Immanuel means, by the way. One interpretation was that not only had the Jews always rejected Jesus, they had handed him over to Rome for crucifixion, for all of which, the world would be a better place without them, and since God was going to burn them in hell for eternity, why not give them a head start?

Ironically, we're presently turning back to that kind of thinking. Not only are people becoming more racist again, as as result of the aggitations of the Left...

Well again, that is one interpretation. Another might be that such sentiments are always present, but that currently any discouragement of racism is criticised as an affront to freedom of speech or derided as 'woke'.

...which is incessantly preoccupied with blaming particular "races" and valourizing others, rather than regarding all humans as equal in value, but are also turning to utopian visions of the fusion of biological humanity with technology...still with a view to seizing the alleged evolutionary process and accelerating it toward desired human goals. In fact, the WEF has a whole program for this, which they call "The Fourth Industrial Revolution."

One would think we should have learned our lesson. But apparently, we have not.

Or we just haven't engineered nutcases out of the species yet.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's a natural deduction. If we were once random atoms, then some rudimentary organism in pond scum, then some kind of fish, then some kind of amphibian, and so on, then evolutionism would seem to suggest that being what we are is, in some important sense, "higher" than that. But then the deduction comes: if the process of evolution got us this far, what's the evidence it won't get us farther? Who's to say that you and I are the most highly-evolved version of the human creature? Who's to say that in another billion years, human beings won't be much more "high" than we are now?

That's an induction.

[Harbal]

It's a natural deduction. If we were once random atoms, then some rudimentary organism in pond scum, then some kind of fish, then some kind of amphibian, and so on, then evolutionism would seem to suggest that being what we are is, in some important sense, "higher" than that. But then the deduction comes: if the process of evolution got us this far, what's the evidence it won't get us farther? Who's to say that you and I are the most highly-evolved version of the human creature? Who's to say that in another billion years, human beings won't be much more "high" than we are now?

That's an induction.

It is also a complete misunderstanding -probably deliberate- of how evolution and natural selection works.

I often think how stressful it must be for those like IC who are involved in the business of discrediting any scientific advance that undermines the Bible. They must have to be constantly on the lookout for new discoveries that need to be rubbished.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you are trying to persuade me that Hitler was a bad man, you are pushing against an open door. Many Germans, like you, believed that the "supreme good of man" is to know God through Jesus Christ, and in fact every member of the wehrmacht was issued a belt on which the buckle said Gott mit uns, which is what Immanuel means, by the way. One interpretation was that not only had the Jews always rejected Jesus, they had handed him over to Rome for crucifixion, for all of which, the world would be a better place without them, and since God was going to burn them in hell for eternity, why not give them a head start?

At the risk of getting myself in hot water (all conversations on this ultra-hot topic have that potential) I will say that though Adolph Hitler earns the right to be designated bad and also *evil*, the facts of the matter indicate that his choices and his actions could fairly be described as accentuations of choices and actions easily identified among many non-German Europeans. If that is so it is then a question of degree. Every Hitlerian stance and doctrine, and all the core doctrines of National Socialism, were shared to degrees in Europe. In the Interwar years many intellectuals were involved with this set of core ideas. See for example Aldous Huxley's Proper Studies: The Proper Study of Mankind Is Man (1927) and Do What You Will (1929) He turns in them to a very strict realism that -- today in any case -- would be unutterable. My understanding is that after the war, as with so many, there was a turn against many of these originally proposed ideas and attitudes, but my point is that they were common. They are also still very considerable, if also discouraged and unpopular.

I point this out not to take from anyone the delicious contempt for the man which has become for us an unquestionable tenet, nor to oppose the declaration about his evilness that must be made from time to time among the truly *righteous*, but only because I have found it serves me to see things in a more balanced light. Psycho-mythologically Hitler serves a function similar to that of Satan: an emblem of evilness. As a symbol he serves that function in nearly all circles.

How Hitler and his clique, and how German National Socialism dealt with the Christian churches and also Christian philosophy and belief is a strange and complex question. In fact what they tried to do, and what they did set in motion, was a re-interpretation movement centered largely, but not exclusively, on the intolerable fact that Jesus was a Jew. My source for this is Susannah Heschel's The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton, 2008)

Like it or not (I mean for those who feel a need to *defend* Nietzsche and to stress that he was no enemy of Judaism or of Jews) the ideas of Nietzsche were part of a general European movement which, as I have said, involved on the one hand getting out from under the oppressive impositions of the fallaciousness of the Christian myths, and all those metaphysical assertions that we know to be non-truths and which we also oppose; and on the other of seeking out and trying to establish an alternative grounding for European man. This was not strictly a German project but a pan-European one. And that is where the idea of an Aryan culture, a sort of European ur-cultural strata, was proposed and sought out. For this reason a great deal of emphasis was placed on Greek culture, ideas and ideals, and naturally the Greeks could be seen as children of the Indo-Europeans and thus 'the Aryans'.

Another interesting aspect here was that of delving into *true* Aryan philosophy and metaphysics as an alternative to the Judaic-based metaphysics which had become so foundational in Europe. And the obvious source was the religious and metaphysical lore of the Indian Subcontinent. There is a book I got and read that was said to be by a very favored author among the National Socialists: The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans by Hans F.K. Gunther. I know it can only be interpreted as criminal if I say that it is actually a very good book. It really has nothing to do with Nazi philosophy but is actually a thoughtful and interesting examination of exactly what it purports to examine: core religious attitudes.

It is a difficult set of assertions to make, and certainly to talk about, yet it is also true that the anti-Christian movement (if I can attach such a bold label), and the movement that sought to discover an ancient and original focus for identification in Indo-Europeanism, was wide and influential and in fact still is. C.G. Jung was deeply involved in it and all of his psychological and mythological investigations, centered naturally on his exploration of his own inner structures, is connected to the same movement as Hans F.K. Gunther explored.

I recognize that the military belt-buckle Gott Mit Uns could be interpreted as reference to the Christian god-concept, and it is true that many Nazi soldiers came from solid Christian stock, but one has to ask what sort of 'Gott' was being defined there? One would have to make reference to the skull ring (Totenkopfring) that was also prominent. It represented, I gathered, a sort of Heideggarian idea about death as an intimate companion of the living. No part of it can be said to link up with Christian concepts.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that not only the Germans and the National Socialists were involved in a redefinition project of what "God" is, but so too was all of Europe.

the world would be a better place without them

Another very problematic assertion I will point to. Let us start by saying that one of the many things we talk about on this forum, when it turns to the consideration of Christianity and all notions of metaphysics, is that *we have to do away* with those who hold to these untenable, regressive ideas that revolve around the mythologies of Christian belief. Consider in this context the virulent opposition to that which IC says he stands for.

It is a fact that the National Socialists wanted to rid their nation, and Europe, of Jews, and their efforts at first involved encouraging and forcing emigration. If they could have exported all or most of them their problem would have been solved. And what was that problem? On one level it had to do with the influences of Judaism within Germanism. These were understood to be incomparable. And the problem became acute and intolerable. The Germanic man and the Jewish man are birds of different feathers, according to this view. And that is why it became necessary to set up other sources for identification -- Indo-Europeanism, Hellenism, Aryanism, and different metaphysical constructs that could oppose or perhaps contradict the established Judaic ones.

So we need to squarely face what I think is a very difficult fact: this process of *doing away with* those who carry the Christian banners, which originate directly within Judaism and are essentially Judaic, are still being fought against. This is beyond any doubt evident and clearly so today.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's a natural deduction. If we were once random atoms, then some rudimentary organism in pond scum, then some kind of fish, then some kind of amphibian, and so on, then evolutionism would seem to suggest that being what we are is, in some important sense, "higher" than that. But then the deduction comes: if the process of evolution got us this far, what's the evidence it won't get us farther? Who's to say that you and I are the most highly-evolved version of the human creature? Who's to say that in another billion years, human beings won't be much more "high" than we are now?

That's an induction.

It is also a complete misunderstanding -probably deliberate- of how evolution and natural selection works.

I often think how stressful it must be for those like IC who are involved in the business of discrediting any scientific advance that undermines the Bible. They must have to be constantly on the lookout for new discoveries that need to be rubbished.

IC has certain limitations that come with the territory for any zealot with an excessive investment in a single paradigm. In his case, he is locked into a highly teleological view of the world and all its systems, to such an extent that he cannot usefully discuss non-teleological theories such as evolution at all. It is impossible for him to avoid accidentally superimposing teleological directional demands on them.

It's the same effect that makes it impossible for him to discuss your moral antirealist stance without insisting that you need to explain a realist outcome with categorical duties for all. The basic concepts of the antirealist description of morality don't align with the God down direction of explanations that he is capable of processing, so he is probably trying his best to understand you, but it will never happen for him.

He can't think his way round the ideas of other people any more, such is the mental burden of the fanatic. We often attribute his behaviours to mendacity, when they are in all probability just the best that he can do in his present state.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is wonderful that talk of evolution is coming up here, and in fact it is synchronous (as in "acausal principle of connection") in a mystical way.

Last night I dreamt of our shared fish-like ancestor, Tiktaalik! He spoke to me! No, not in a human language but in something I would call a muddled fish-dialect. And yet I understood everything! I am not trying to trivialize it. I was actually quite moved. When I got up I semi-consciously ran the bath water. My wife came in and turned the water off ...