Philosophy Now Forum

Harry Baird wrote:The "Purely Good God" has naturally a spirit of *play*, but not a spirit of *misdirection*. But please, share your irony, so long as it is playful and not misdirected.

My 'Abraxasesque' god grew tired of the goody-goody constraints imposed by his son Alpha Hyperpious and nearly everything he does is a classic story of *misdirection*. Is there a Twelve-Step Program for such errant gods?

Felasco: But you said we're "looking" for God. Why should we exclude the "symbolic" from our search? How are we going to find Him other than the symbolic? By that I mean, if we find Him in the "now", then won't our recollections of that "finding" be "in the past", and "symbolic"? How can we *avoid* the symbolic, then?

Gustav: I got tired of "goody-goody" constraints, too, so I tied up your girlfriend and got a bunch of mates of mine to rape her. Don't worry, its only that I have
"a bit of the Devil" in me. She'll get over it. Not so sure about her kid, though.

Okay, I'll try to work within the parameters of this view: This young fellow, how shall he redeem himself? I guess I mean not so much 'redeem' as orient himself, channel his energies after such an impacting event? You are not so sure if he will 'get over it' but this implies that, in relation to life's terrors large and small that 'getting over' is not possible? Or, in some way or other, is that the *meaning* of the event? And if that is the *meaning* of all that happens to us between birth and death, what does that say? And where (in this Manichean vision) is the Savior? And what does this Savior do for his devotee? And what is 'salvation' in this sense? And also, how in this specific sense will God's Forgiveness function?

The point had nothing to do with "redemption" of the innocent. It had solely to do with your minimising morality to "goody-goody constraints". I only wanted to point out to you that, if it were not for "goody-goody constraints", your life (and "wife") would, quite literally, be "fucked". Morality is not a facade to be pulled about oneself when one wants to present a good image to the world; morality is the bedrock of our decision-making, and, were it not for the morality of our fellows, we would, literally, again, all be fucked. So, please don't give me this "I don't care for goody-goody constraints" crap, unless you're willing for hell to be unleashed upon yourself and those for whom you care.

Hold on! Are you sure that little fucker is so innocent? If he were why would God have to forgive him anything at all?

Pushing questions forward, my dear Harry, is the name of the (terrible) game. It seems to me that to *understand* things we need to be willing to go forward with fearless analysis. Curious that you bring up sex. Andrea Dworkin wrote a book (Intercourse) in which she argued that 'all heterosexual sex is rape'. Now, what I find is how every woman I have ever known, provided she is comfortable with the encounter, has tremendously enjoyed 'playing the submissive role'. I am not making this up. It seems to me fundamental to sexuality between a man and a woman. If she desires a little assertion it is always and only within a tacit submissive role. But more than 'role' which implies choice, it is seemingly 'part of the Order of Things'. And really, if one were to be thoroughly honest, one would I think have to admit that Mother Nature has set up circumstances in which there is no choice but to engage, essentially, in 'rape' and 'being raped'. (And we do not come into this world through some Celestial Gate attended by Angles and their serene harps, we come into it at an intensely physical level, all down around organs and functions of elimination). A woman's role is to gestate humans and it is a man's role to inseminate her. Now, we all know that we are supposed to appear as 'decent blokes' while, on another level, that Crafty Phallus carries out other stratagems. Despite all attempts at spin we are all very much in the thick of it. The God I am attempting to speak about, in a theatre of symbols, therefor, is represented as a God of all these processes. That is 'reality'. Or have I got it wrong?

Harry wrote:...morality is the bedrock of our decision-making, and, were it not for the morality of our fellows, we would, literally, again, all be fucked. So, please don't give me this "I don't care for goody-goody constraints" crap, unless you're willing for hell to be unleashed upon yourself and those for whom you care.

But Harry, 'hell' is essentially unleashed in and around me, with or without my assent! We are in it even when we imagine we aren't, or when we trick ourselves into imagining that we are not. True, I take particular offense when there is a human agent that could have done something else. But 'hell' is built in and is 'structural'.

One thing I note is your (misdirected!) fire! It is interesting to me (pardon me for coming across like a Collector or someone examining the wing of a butterfly under a magnifying lens) how easy it is to take on the role of a sort of 'preacher' who castigates 'the evil ones' for their incorrect view. I have a sense that people who 'cannot locate themselves in the real world' and can't or won't accept its terms are the ones who, push come to shove, show (more?) of this 'puritanical spirit'.

And I am not really so sure it is 'morality' that keeps people in line but rather 'fear': fear of what a stronger man may do to them in retaliation. Remember: I live in a place that is retrogressive, in this sense, and the 'truth' of things is more visible. In my story therefor, that tyke who witnessed his mother's rape must therefor become the Avenging Angel to any man who does such a thing. So, first he locates each of the men who performed the act against his own mother, then he captures them, and then submits them to inhuman torture---death by a thousand cuts---that goes on for weeks. I can't quite visualize their End yet but it may have something to do with running them through a wood chipper at first snow fall (but I may be plagiarizing that from 'Fargo' by the Cohn brothers). Is his act 'moral' or 'immoral'? I find that I am quite in the thick of it all and, very frankly, I am uncertain how to adjudicate life, our life here, the essential conflicts of our life here, and so much else. In one moment I am sacrificing chickens in a Nietzschean Temple and in the next wishing for a Whole Other World that has a different Internal Logic...

It is not so much that I desire to 'give you' an 'I don't care for goody-goody constraints crap' as I am inclined to keep pushing forward into the heart of darkness as it were. I knew this machete would come in handy!

Gustav wrote:The God I am attempting to speak about, in a theatre of symbols, therefor, is represented as a God of all these processes. That is 'reality'. Or have I got it wrong?

If you haven't got it wrong, then you are at least speaking of a different God than I. The God *I* am attempting to speak about is the one who gave us your yogic techniques of ascension; He is not the one complicit in rape-of-which-there-is-no-other-choice.

Gustav wrote:One thing I note is your (misdirected!) fire!

Oh, stuff and nonsense. You fired the first shots ("goody-goody constraints imposed by his son Alpha Hyperpious"). Don't cry foul when you receive return fire.

Gustav wrote:And I am not really so sure it is 'morality' that keeps people in line but rather 'fear'

That may be for some; morality is in some ways a "codifying of good habits", however those good habits were formed - whether through fear, love or reason.

Gustav wrote:Is his act 'moral' or 'immoral'?

Is it really that difficult a question? You ask whether running a man through a wood-chipper could possibly be moral? Did you even think about it?

Gustav wrote:I find that I am quite in the thick of it all and, very frankly, I am uncertain how to adjudicate life, our life here, the essential conflicts of our life here, and so much else.

Not everything is black and white, for sure, but really, if you can't distinguish wood-chipping from charity, and rape from consent, then you might want to consider remedial classes.

'Yogic techniques of ascension' (the techniques practiced by renouncers and those who will or desire to 'incarnate the fuck out of here') are techniques, or ideas, or illusions, practiced within a far broader conceptualized system.

The actual base of the Vedic system(s) is a social and cultural structure which defines an earthly kingdom, ruled by a wise aristocracy, who lords it over an established and layered social system in which each unit has a role and performs that role. Fulfilling one's role is called 'dharma', and each man has his unique dharma, unlike any other but shared by class and other distinctions. It is a system in which the ruling King takes, if you will, a certain weight and responsibility for establishing and maintaining the Order, such as defense and conquest and many other 'dirty' tasks which tend to contaminate religiously, while interiorly the various classes and divisions carry on within largely 'peaceful' structures. The King's role is unique insofar as it is understood as a dirty business, this 'carving out a space' for civilization to occur. Because it is 'dirty' it necessitates all manner of special purification activities, highly ritualized of course. A 'good King' is one who, through understanding of the 'facts'---strict terrestrial facts mind you, non-embellished---creates the 'space' for all other human activities to occur. The renouncer traditions all came later (based on what I have read). It can be seen as just another layer of imposition on Reality, as if to say:

• Reality is too brutal, too raw and too terrible. So, I will instead visualize a radically different System and one where 'the real world', a truer and hence original and purer world, exists over and above this one, and I will call that Real and all this Unreal. I will renounce activities here, allow the body to fall away, and begin to reside in that 'other world'.

All well and good, if you accept that men do indeed live within 'imagined realities' that are distinct from Reality. Remember, I have proposed this as even a necessary choice for man: to live within imposed and irreal worlds. Not only is it 'necessary', it is actually the way most men live. I am not completely convinced it is wise to exit those illusions. I would wish to be able to say that, yes, he should. But I am not convinced.

When I wrote 'misdirected fire' it was not by any means a criticism! If I allow myself, inspired by the Terrible and Aggressive God who rules me, to say all manner of brutal things, why would I then resist 'fire' in others? The 'fire' I am speaking about though is 'puritanical fire'. I don't mind at all. I just *note* it.

Harry wrote:That may be for some; morality is in some ways a "codifying of good habits", however those good habits were formed - whether through fear, love or reason.

The examination of the foundations of 'morality' is an interesting topic. It is more complex (I submit to you) than you seem to be aware (at least from my reading of you). If acting morally is really a 'game' in which one weighs benefits and consequences, I think this does have some bearing on how morality shall be looked at. I am weak in this area myself, though I did make my living working the Short Con on tour boats on the Orinoco for a few years. Mostly American matrons, a little lonely, a little rich. Consider Games Prisoners Play. If life is indeed a sort of 'bad trip' we are tossed into, are we all not, in that sense, 'prisoners'? And are we not all of us 'con artists'? And are we not, also, conning ourselves in an elaborate con game? I find these questions interesting at the very least. Con artists in a duplicitous world, tricked by the world itself, involved in Con Trips and conning themselves about the Real Facts of their complicity.

Consider the following:

• The "grypsmen," prisoner upper classes, take the role of game designers and have access to information unknown to other players. In a world with next to no physical resources to convert into productive capital, these inmates capitalize on the one asset they seem to hold in abundance; knowledge. Veteran inmates know the repetitive nature of prison society and have exploited profitable avenues in it. There is a single unstable condition: the constant risk and uncertainty associated with new inmates. A new inmate might either accept the social ranks of his cell mates and abide by the rules upon hearing them, or he could rebel against it and threaten to disrupt all of the peace and order which the veteran inmates have worked hard to instill. The harshness of enforcement is a direct result of the combined limitations of physical resource scarcity with the extreme risk imposed by uncertainty of new inmate violence.

Is it really that difficult a question? You ask whether running a man through a wood-chipper could possibly be moral? Did you even think about it?

My Naive Child! How out of touch you are with Reality! I am going to set out a little bait, something delicious and alluring, and I will draw you back in! Like the woman in the red dress in the Matrix.

A man who carries out a really brutal rape (often with murder, torture, etc.) is sent to the hell of prison for the rest of his life. A living torture, really. 'Punishment' is another very interesting subtext to our present conversations! For even in the Vedantic view our being here, in this nether-realm strung between Heaven and Hell is a 'punishment' because we fell away from God and Home. So, God is in this sense a Grand Torturer. 'You will be tortured until you understand'. Harry, sometimes you seem so unprepared to participate in these conversations! Do you wear a little flowered bonnet too? There is so much you don't seem to understand. Is there Salvation for you in this limited sense? Might you do a wee bit of reading sometime?

Not everything is black and white, for sure, but really, if you can't distinguish wood-chipping from charity, and rape from consent, then you might want to consider remedial classes.

Could be. Or perhaps I am just a victim of the Great Sadist. However, like you I am preparing a Theological Lawsuit … and I will prevail! I will have my day in court!

It is interesting to note, in late Vaishnavism (worship of Vishnu), that the final incarnation of Vishnu (Kalki) will return to rectify everything and he will do so through elimination of all errant men, all those who do not resign themselves to function within their dharma, and who 'violate the natural order'. He comes on a White Horse and with a Sword. It won't be pretty putting the World back in order nor the Evil One in the wood chipper. And this is exactly the point: it is not now a 'pretty' battle. Nor is the domain pretty. Nor is our 'dharma' pretty. Arjuna wished to renounce his responsibility and Krishna (God) convinced him otherwise. There is no bowing out. But if one desires to renounce and if it is one's 'dharma' then I suppose one turns one's eyes to Heaven and just allows The World to go its crazy way.

• "Do not become a coward because it does not befit you. Shake off this trivial weakness of your heart and get up for the battle, O Arjuna." (Chap 2 verse 3)

Felasco: But you said we're "looking" for God. Why should we exclude the "symbolic" from our search?

Well, are we looking for a symbolic God, or a real one? If we want a symbolic God, there are surely of plenty of books on the topic, and all kinds of theories etc. If we're looking for a real God, shouldn't we look in the real world?

How are we going to find Him other than the symbolic?

Let's say I'm riding on a train, and I have my head stuck in a book. If I want to see the real people in the seats around me, don't I have to put the book down? I have a choice, focus my attention on the symbolic, or focus my attention on the real, right?

If the question is "is there a God in the real world", why are we looking in books?? Wouldn't that kinda be like asking "are there shoes in my closet" and then going to search the front yard to find out?

By that I mean, if we find Him in the "now", then won't our recollections of that "finding" be "in the past", and "symbolic"?

Yes, of course. We have some experience. And then we have a memory. And then we probably get all caught up in the memory, playing it over and over and over again in our heads, and thus distracted, miss the next real experience.

To the degree I understand it, I think we keep going back to the symbolic because we want control.

We had some experience, and we want to have it again. So we go to the inner symbolic kingdom we rule over as petty gods, and tell our inner thought servants to play the memory tape over and over, and they do as they are commanded. It's all good but...

Our thought servants can't deliver the real experience. They can only deliver the second hand watered down symbolic version. We've asked them for God, and so they do the best they can do, and give us a photo of God.

And then maybe we get mesmerized by the photo of God, and the name of God, so we sit endlessly looking at the photo chanting the name of God. Which drags us ever farther in to the symbolic, and ever farther away from the real. And thus, religion becomes the enemy of spirituality.

How can we *avoid* the symbolic, then?

You're walking down the hall at your office building, lost in thought. Suddenly five naked women step off the elevator. And now, whaddya know, you're no longer lost in thought, but attending fully to the here and now, the real. You gave up all that stuff you were thinking about, because you decided the real world was more interesting.

Felasco wrote:If we're looking for a real God, shouldn't we look in the real world?

It would seem to me to be necessary to point out that at times, many people---ourselves---are focussed in that memory or imagination realm and that we trick ourselves, at least sometimes, into thinking it is real, and that it could do us a lot of good to literally come down to earth. But it would seem to me that putting forward this idea of yours as a 'proposal' that the next most obvious questions would have to do with Just what exactly do you mean? And also: why would one even bother to call that immediacy of presence (or whatever you mean) as 'God' and why hold to the term? It would seem that it would almost exactly be very distinct from any traditional or anecdotal idea about 'God'. And yet I gather that you don't mean simply 'nature'.

Gentlemen,

I must admit to the consumption last night of *somewhat* more amber fluid than is conducive to clear thought and calm talk, so my contributions may not have been as lucid and composed as one might have hoped for.

In any case, I'm not really sure where to go with these conversations, so I'll kind of wing a response.

Gustav, you suggest that I am naive and ignorant, and perhaps what you would also say is that I am not "realistic" ("How out of touch you are with Reality!"), as you (apparently) desire and strive to be. But progress isn't made by "realists"; if the Wright brothers had been "realistic" about the possibility of flight, we would still be Earth-bound, or at least *they* would not have taken us into the skies. This, I think, ties in with your "conservative" views: whilst your views are in some ways "conservative" in a non-standard sense, I sense that with your notion of "realism", you are in some ways as opposed to progress as is the standard conservative: your "realism" says, "This is just the way the world is, we cannot change it, we must simply 'accept reality'".

Yes, we punish criminals with jail, but in using this example against me, you assume that I support it! Your assumption is false. I do think that in many cases it is appropriate to separate people from society because of the danger they pose to it, but I don't think that this should be about "punishment", it should be about safety, and they should be given opportunities to live fulfilling lives as much as possible, and, hopefully, if possible, be rehabilitated so that they might return to society.

I heard a very interesting story a while back about a culture in Africa where, when someone commits a crime, rather than being "punished", the offender is seated in the middle of the village, and for days and days, every villager comes along and recounts to this person all of the good deeds s/he has performed for him/her. Apparently, the recidivism rate in this culture is very low. Isn't that an interesting alternative to the "vengeful" underpinnings of our own justice system?

I think that there is also an interesting commentary here on the tendency of our Western culture towards the commoditisation of man. A person is valued insofar as s/he is "law-abiding", and "contributes to society", in other words, insofar as s/he is a valued commodity; otherwise, s/he is devalued, whereupon the idea of "punishment" becomes viable: why care about punishing harshly that which has been utterly devalued? And, in fact, in a way the punishment is a *consequence* of the devaluing: in a way, the object of the punishment is punished *for* being valueless. This quite obviously ties in to our capitalist values, but I don't think that capitalism is the source of commoditisation; rather, it is an outcome of it.

I have little idea how you arrive at the idea of life as a "con game" - presumably this is more "realism". No, I don't see life as a con game, and I have no intention of living it as though it were. No doubt there exist con artists of various forms in life. I don't think that the appropriate response to this is to become a con artist oneself! This is a common theme with you, though, with your affinity for "Trickster". So, I guess you see what I value as puritanical and naive, and I see what you value as ... I don't know, perhaps "devious and perverse". Why ought we not to strive for openness, directness, transparency and integrity in our dealings with others? Just because *some* others don't do likewise? Why should this deter us? How weak of us it would be to follow in the paths of the *least* honourable, to debase ourselves to the level of the lowest common denominator. That, really, is how I view your "realism": as a succumbing.

Felasco, as I said, my earlier contributions were ... not as considered as they could have been. So, please let me try again. Sure, if we want to "find" God, we have to search until we have a "real" encounter with Him, where, by "real", we mean some sort of *tangible, visceral experience* of Him. I have no quibble with you there, except that I'm not sure we have the same view of who/what God is - perhaps you could explain your own view as I tried to explain mine. To that I'd add, and it's a minor point, and probably one that you wouldn't differ with anyway, this: if we *do* have a real experience of God, then it is legitimate (and unavoidable) for us to then refer back to it in "symbols" i.e. memory/language. Perhaps a follow-up point to that which you might find less agreeable, is: if it is legitimate for us personally to refer to our own "symbolisations" of past "real" experiences of God, then is it not also legitimate for us to refer to the "symbolisations" by *others* of *their* past "real" experiences of God? In this sense, is it not reasonable, assuming we have not had our own "real" experience, to "search for God in the symbolic [recollections of others of their past real experiences with Him]"?

Hi Gustav,

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:...why would one even bother to call that immediacy of presence (or whatever you mean) as 'God' and why hold to the term?

I'm happy to throw that word over board, and was using it only because this is the religion section. A religiously inclined person might use the word God, an atheist might use the term reality, and someone of an absurdist orientation might call it a tomato.

Point being, if we are talking about the real world and not the symbolic world, the name is of minimal importance. If we're hungry and somebody hands us an apple, do we really care whether it's called an apple, peach, or orange? The practical hungry person is concerned with eating the apple, which perhaps we might simply call peace.

We go looking for things like gods, philosophies, wealth, wine, women and song etc because we don't have peace and we hope these things will bring us peace. At least in the developed world, the huge juggernaut knowledge powered global economy is focused on this mission, with the result that we are now the richest people to ever walk the Earth.

I'm hardly the first person to point out the obvious fact that we still haven't found what we're looking for, peace. In fact, we are as crazy as ever, with thousands of nuclear missiles aimed down our own throat, a fact which only barely interests us, a clear sign of insanity.

As I see it, this situation arises out of a confusion about the needs of the body vs. the needs of the mind.

For countless thousands of years humans were forced to focus on the needs of the body, where the solution was finding things outside of ourselves such as food, water, shelter etc. "More is better" was a good operating principle, because shortages of such external resources was routine.

Now that we are rich (a very new development) we understandably bring this same ancient mindset to meeting the needs of the mind, but in the case of the needs of the mind a "more is better" focus on external things doesn't work.

Assuming the needs of the body are met, our lack of peace doesn't arise from a shortage of external resources, and thus can not be fixed by external resources. As we all know, even wealthy people can be miserable. The richest person I've ever known (very rich) has struggled with drug addiction for the past 40 years.

Our lack of peace arises from the inherently divisive nature of what we are, thought. That is, our near constant immersion in a watered down, second hand, cardboard version of reality that we've been calling the symbolic. The problem here is that no matter how many wonderfully perfect photos of apples we might have, photos have no nutritional value.

It would seem that it would almost exactly be very distinct from any traditional or anecdotal idea about 'God'. And yet I gather that you don't mean simply 'nature'.

Nature is a perfectly acceptable word for me. If I had to describe my "religion" in a single word, that's the one I'd use. My wife and I, each in our own way, are nature worshipers. Upon finishing this post I'm off to a long day in the north Florida woods.

The inherently divisive nature of thought will divide reality in to "God", "nature", "me", "Gustav", "tree" etc, and then like the good little database software it is, assign each of it's conceptual object creations a name, and place them all in a web of cross linked categories.

This is the machine through which we observe reality. It's a useful machine for meeting the needs of the body. When it comes to the needs of the mind, this inherently divisive machine provides experience of division, when it's psychic unity with god/reality/whatever that we really seek.

Oh my, so very many thoughts about the limits of thoughts. I am an argument with myself. It's ok to laugh.

Hi again Harry,

I have no quibble with you there, except that I'm not sure we have the same view of who/what God is - perhaps you could explain your own view as I tried to explain mine.

I have no firm opinion on the God topic, but am happy to speculate just for fun. We've been saying, and it seems agreeing, that our search for Whatever should take place in the real world, because we are looking for a real Whatever, not just some product of our imagination.

Ok, so let's examine the real world then and see what clues it may reveal.

We can observe that the real world is overwhelmingly nothing (relative nothing for the sticklers among us) all the way from the subatomic to cosmic level.

Perhaps religious philosophers are much like astronomers? Astronomers seem to spend most of their time focused on planets, stars, galaxies etc, that is the "somethings", which compose the tiniest fraction of reality. And in such a focus, they tend to largely ignore the largest part of reality, the nothing.

To that I'd add, and it's a minor point, and probably one that you wouldn't differ with anyway, this: if we *do* have a real experience of God, then it is legitimate (and unavoidable) for us to then refer back to it in "symbols" i.e. memory/language.

Yes, agreed, legitimate and unavoidable, the human condition.

We'll put less and less focus on this symbolic enterprise as it dawns on us that what we're looking for doesn't exist in the symbolic world, but in the real world.

Perhaps a follow-up point to that which you might find less agreeable, is: if it is legitimate for us personally to refer to our own "symbolisations" of past "real" experiences of God, then is it not also legitimate for us to refer to the "symbolisations" by *others* of *their* past "real" experiences of God?

Sure, anything we might want to do is legitimate as it's our life to live as we please.

In this sense, is it not reasonable, assuming we have not had our own "real" experience, to "search for God in the symbolic [recollections of others of their past real experiences with Him]"?

It's reasonable to look in the symbolic realm, because that's what humans do, and as you reasonably point out, we can hardly help it.

It's not reasonable to expect we'll find something real in the symbolic realm. No matter how many wonderful photos I might have of my new friend Harry, none of them will ever be the real Harry.

In that case, Felasco, I might ask you to explain what you mean by "finding" God. Do you not count the (symbolic) affirmations of others as to their experiences of God as, in some sense, a "finding" of God? I suppose that I'm asking whether "proof [insofar as one accepts it] of the existence of" God, which might well include "proof through the (symbolic) testimony of others" is, in its own way, a "finding" of God: a realisation that He is "real" based on the affirmations of those who have had experiences with Him. Or do you *only* count personal experiences as valid? By the way, I have no fixed view on this myself, I recognise both perspectives. On the one hand, one might suggest that one hasn't truly "found" God unless one has had a tangible, visceral, "real" experience of Him; on the other, we might suggest that the affirmations of others, based on tangible, visceral experiences, can (should?) be enough to convince us of His existence, and, in some sense, to "find" Him.

Also, I'm not really sure I understand your answer as to what you believe God is. You mentioned "nothing" quite a lot... I'm not sure quite what you're saying - that God is "nothing"? This doesn't make much sense to me, to be honest.

P.S. I do wish I could share wonderful photographs of myself with you! Alas, I am striving for anonymity on this forum. I guess the same goes for you, since "Felasco" is unlikely to be a given name. But if not, then please go ahead and share yourself with us!

Harry wrote:I have little idea how you arrive at the idea of life as a "con game" - presumably this is more "realism". No, I don't see life as a con game, and I have no intention of living it as though it were.

Sorry to take advantage of the rhetorical opening offered, though such taking advantage is commensurate with an admitted 'aggressive' attitude and valuation, yet your sentimental approach, a naive and untested sentimentality I would add, smacks of 'con game' from top to bottom. Not only are you running a con but you have conned yourself: "Con artists in a duplicitous world, tricked by the world itself, involved in Con Trips and conning themselves about the Real Facts of their complicity." What I also find is that, because of your mental laziness, you don't have a means to really examine ideas through. Yet I propose that it is possible, with a certain amount of concentrated and continued effort, to actually look into some of the ideas presented (for example in my posts) as opposed to superficially skimming over them and effectively diminishing the content or thrust through unfamiliarity and lack of interest, and also seeming to resort, in the end, to stark sentimentalism.

This, I think, ties in with your "conservative" views: whilst your views are in some ways "conservative" in a non-standard sense, I sense that with your notion of "realism", you are in some ways as opposed to progress as is the standard conservative: your "realism" says, "This is just the way the world is, we cannot change it, we must simply 'accept reality'".

In some sense at least, though I do not have it worked out by any means and in truth your views are just as valid as mine or anyone's in the context of conversation, 'conservatism' as I would define it is a recapitulation of one's self and one's attitudes (and actions) in this world. It is a retreat away from 'unrealism' which might only mean too much emphasis on speculation, idealistic speculation perhaps, and a return to a more grounded attitude. This does indeed hinge into the topic of this thread at least in how I conceive it. The Question seems to become What really is Progress? What does it mean for a society to 'progress'? What does it mean for a person to progress in their allotted time in life? I find that in answering those questions, more often than not, one answers through forms of 'conservatism'. There is a definite tension between 'conservative' values in the sense of 'tried-and-true' and also 'universal values, and a sort of restless expansiveness and resistance to the present. It is also true, generally speaking, that in most cases one 'becomes more conservative' in outlook the longer that one has lived, and that 'youthful idealism', having been tested, returns, perhaps 'conservatively', to the practicable. I am of the opinion at this moment that 'progress' is not outward-looking but inward-focussed. The things that need attention are immediate and close to hand. The people around one, their care and nourishment, etc. At least as I have discovered it, there is no new territory here, and I also suggest there will never be.

So the intention in starting a thread of this sort is to suggest that we might not know what Progress actually is, and that in breaking the link with our own past and all the knowledge-traditions that have been stored up there, we may be making a big mistake. I am restating this in an attempt to place our present conversations within the over-all context.

I find a few things interesting. One of them is how to relate to malefactors. It is a terribly problematic area because it obviously has to do with someone making a judgment about another. Or a group making a judgment about another group. This responsibility should not be avoided. It cannot be avoided in fact. You must keep in mind as you read my thoughts that I live in a radically different place than you. I allude to this often. In short, here, people cannot decide, and they will not decide, what is malefaction and what is not. There is a great deal of 'delinquency' as it is called here. The police and judicial systems are weak, there is a hodgepodge legal system that is unclear, and a great deal of misplaced empathy for those who wind up breaking the law.

But I am speaking mostly about violent crime, and riffing off of your rape-vision. For example, about a year ago my GF's brother got shot in a robbery. Shot in the head in fact. Luckily for him the bullet did not penetrate into his brain but went into the bone. He is now deaf in one ear. This sort of thing happens all the time. Not only do they rob you but they also might shoot you. And why? To me no excuse, no explanation, no sophistry or con-artistry applies here, one has to see the straight facts:

• If you pick up a gun (I might also include knives) and point it at someone, for any reason and at any time, you have forfeited your privilege of living. In that case 'you' should immediately be shot. Without a second thought. No remorse, no excuse.

Clearly, this all came to me after I was myself robbed at gunpoint. True, I 'sort of forgave' and made efforts to visualize their circumstances, the difficulties of their lives, blah blah blah, but then I came to see that this is the root of permissiveness. In a sense I am not allowed to be permissive when it has to do with someone else's life. Then, a friend of a friend's 16 year old daughter was shot and killed in a robbery of exactly the same sort. I thought about this for a month. Then, and because I could see the logic of cutting through 'permissiveness' to the stark underpinning of the questions, my attitude shifted: One cannot be allowed to threaten another person with a mortal instrument because in so many cases it results in mortality, or wounding, or brain damage, and inexpressible pain and difficulty, and that this has to be the line that one cannot cross. I would not want to do it myself, this is true, but were some of these malefactors to die, to simply be eliminated, I would not cry. Strange, isn't it? I am just trying to be honest. This is 'seeing things in real terms' in my book.

What I find interesting is to return, at least conceptually, to some of the 'older models' of human organization, to have a point of comparison. One then has something to work with. In the so-called Vedic system, at least in the philosophy of the Bhagavad-Gita, it is *understood* that we are less our outward form and more 'spirit-souls'. If a man perishes physically, in this view, he is not really lost. So, Arjuna was counseled to see his opponents on the great battlefield of Kurukshetra as 'performers' in a certain sense. The notion is far-reaching but not unproblematic by any means. But at the core it does have to do with 'malefaction' since, at the core, Kurukshetra is a metaphor for the struggles in this life, and there are Values proposed that require defense. In the system established or visualized, there exists righteousness and unrighteousness. It is part of a Natural Order and society, supposedly, must mirror this natural order. This idea runs through all systems of government invented so far to date. And it also runs through all of our ideas about righteousness, justice, social organization, family life, and almost everything else. So, by seeing the scope of the issue, the overall conversation takes place within a tangible and sensible territory.

I do think that in many cases it is appropriate to separate people from society because of the danger they pose to it, but I don't think that this should be about "punishment", it should be about safety, and they should be given opportunities to live fulfilling lives as much as possible, and, hopefully, if possible, be rehabilitated so that they might return to society.

I suggest this is evidence, outright, of a kind of 'self-conning'. I might suggest, without being totally certain, that there are some people who simply do not desire to behave, nor to 'be good', and that it is a con-trip to project onto them some notion of 'fulfillment' as a goal of their living. I am speaking here of the really bad ones. The ones that cross lines and can never, ever be trusted again, even by their own admission. I also have a very strong feeling that by choosing not to understand punishment quite precisely as what it in fact is, that one is running another con-trip, on oneself first off, and then on others. I mean you no personal offense in saying this I hope you understand. The idea is common and in this sense not yours. It is almost absurd that 'punishment', which is applied harm and even torture, is transformed into rehabilitation vacation. I certainly would not say that it is not possible for a man, after committing crimes, is not capable of conversion or of realization. But when that happens, how does it happen? Usually, it is by coming to understand a 'higher metaphysic' that negates the specificity of selfish action and privileges a more abstract view. But if that shift is not forthcoming, what then? Your African story is valid but only insofar as the 'crimes' are likely extremely petty. Yet it doesn't surprise me that, with near complete lack of experience in the 'real world', that you would imagine that such methods would work. It is a self-established con-trip (I suggest) so to not to have to look at and actually see 'reality' here as it is. Yes, there is a cure: contact with that reality.

This is a common theme with you, though, with your affinity for "Trickster". So, I guess you see what I value as puritanical and naive, and I see what you value as ... I don't know, perhaps "devious and perverse". Why ought we not to strive for openness, directness, transparency and integrity in our dealings with others?

I am fairly certain that you don't understand the implications of my notions about man, about 'reality', about realism, certainly about 'God' and spirituality, not theology nor dogmatics. In the most basic terms I propose that we cannot divide God away from the world. For example as you do. You propose an absolutely good God, unstained in any sense by real contact with the world. And you naturally have to explain all the terrible contradictions of life through a 'divisive' man oeuvre in which all that you understand as Evil is focussed toward an opposite pole. And you are there, in the middle. There is more that could be said but who desires to be picked apart on an Internet forum? [Only Gustav, the truly heroic one, summits himself to it---invites it!] I understand this as a possibility.

I understand that it is done (dividing), but I question it. Now, 'trickster' is not my invention. Trickster is actually an idea that has pretty profound metaphysical roots. You might interpret that idea superficially to mean 'deviousness' or 'perversion' but this is not exactly how I mean it. We need in some sense a revision of 'God' in order to have an effective way of acting in this world. It is a quite literal fact that Jesus Christ does not have a male member. This is not a joke. It is not a jab at Christians or Christianity. There is a deep meaning here, really. Put it this way: I do not trust a God who has no penis. I do not trust a man who honors a God with no penis. And I don't trust a man who does not himself have a 'penis' and all this connotes. If a man is not really and fundamentally connected to his world, and if he is in denial of what exactly connects him, how can he realistically make proposals about how we should live? That man cannot know! The men who know are those men who exist and live and build in the real world. The sexual aspect is not symbolic. Sex, power, property, definition of values, structure, organization, use of force, punishment, all these things, are the real things of this world.

How weak of us it would be to follow in the paths of the *least* honourable, to debase ourselves to the level of the lowest common denominator. That, really, is how I view your "realism": as a succumbing.

More con-artistry. But I really don't wish to 'offend' you, personally. In my view you would have to *earn* your idealism by actually having a tangible relationship with the 'real world'. I know (I sense) that you speak from impractical, unpracticed perspectives. For you it seems to be mostly theoretical. It is in this sense that I speak, so brutally and directly, about running con-trips on ourselves. Fooling ourselves and fooling others. In no sense does it negate the possibility of being good or doing good, or being noble or generous or committed to value. I suppose it is more to organizing such things within 'realistic perspectives'.