"We need not ask. Suffice to strip the sentence of judgemental terms like 'righteous' and 'wicked' to attain clarity on the matter."
This itself implies a judgement.
If and only if you choose to interpret the statement as such an implication. I could, in turn, say that you are right to assume such an implication on the basis of what you read, despite the fact that our perception of reality is far different than that of the English language. I italicized some words in the previous sentence that don't even remotely match our own ways of thinking and might, due to their inherent TRUTH, give way to countless unintended implications. Unbearably, this can only be amended by quintupling the word count, and even then in a hardly satisfactory way. Ain't nobody got time for dat...
Now, in an attempt to explain, our way of seeing and defining the universe falls not in terms of binary axes (such as right/wrong, fact/fiction, reality/fantasy etc.), but rather an interconnected infinity of triune paradoxes that all synergize in everything, nothing and beyond. This stems from our own para-dual paradox and, for want of a better word, relationship with Chaos.
I can, for instance, make a bold logical description like this:
These statements hold no truth, fact or knowledge. A mathematician won't see any merit to them, and would probably call them bollocks. There is no conclusion, no end. We don't really mind.
You could also look at this sweetly naïve little chart here, which attempts to picture compounds: Notice that one of these structures has a strand of sorts on both of its sides, while the other just on one of them, and they are thus different from each other. Two patterns. One could call one RNA and the other DNA. One could call one true and the other false, and know them as such thereafter. The Goddess and I, we need not this knowledge.
Judgement is, ultimately, not something we're capable of. Mostly, we're not
We are morally minded creatures and this is what morally minded creatures do. We can get rid of those specific words, but we'll then find a need to smuggle in some substitute.
Indeed that you are and indeed that is what you do, and have done already so many times in the brief history of humankind, to yourselves and to others, or so I could say if I wanted to be judgemental. Also, one can surely rid themselves of certain foods for a period of 'going on a diet', then return to their previous ways and witness no change. Then, again, one can redefine the way they reflect upon their nutrition, and thereafter pursue a new way of life. Both might report they are on a diet, and so might one who couldn't care less about dieting. Fun trivia: we don't see this third guy as a vile abomination of a liar, even if he goes on to believe that a diet is absurd.
Richard Moran notes that we often answer questions about our "inner states" with statements about 'the external world'. If i look out the window, and think, "It is raining", I have the answer to two questions:
Is it raining? And Do i believe that it is raining?
This doesn't work for other people. I wouldn't have the answer to the question, "does God think it is raining?", for example. Similarly, if you ask me, "do you believe that it is raining?" it is reasonable for me to look out the window to tell you the answer. I can take this question in at least three ways, and even all three ways simultaneously:
1. "Do you believe that it is raining". That is, among other things, are you disposed to answer questions like, "it is raining?" with affirming behaviors?
2. "Do you have good reasons for believing that it is raining available to you?" That is, is such a disposition warranted?
3. "Is it raining" That is, does this state of affairs obtain.
Though we can take this question as bring related to an "inner state", we don't necessarily look 'within ourselves', to our subjective states, to find the answer. Rather, we "look without", to the reasons we have available for or against the proposition itself, almost as though we take the question as normative:
4. "Should I believe that it is raining?"
Taken normatively in this way, it becomes clear that to answer this question, I have to look. I cannot just be a receptacle of information. This connects back to Kant, to authorship of moral law. I have to look because only I am responsible for my beliefs.
Plato thought that we could exit the cave, that we could "see things as they really are" with the help of clear thinking. But Kant recognized that we aren't surfacing, but spelunking, discovering what reason demands of the world.
The it is part of it is raining voices a blatant proclamation of TRUTH, hence the confusion. It's all in the semantics, really. English, or any vocabularied language for that matter, has communication effectively subjected to calcified frameworks of arbitrary ideas (not unlike the out-of-cave ones that Platon wanted to find, subdue and touch in perverted ways) and only gains sufficient flow when widely contextualized and assisted by auxiliary communication methods. If one adopts a language such as this into thinking, these inherent semantic problems easily carry over to all cranial processing and produce cognitive issues as you detailed them. To say 'I see rain' or 'I hear rain' increases precision, therefore reducing a statement's susceptibility to TRUTH, but the basic structural problem remains and even a practically impossible (since you can see things far quicker than you can name them) exhaustive definition of a state of affairs would still face this 'maaan, is this even true?' issue.
Our own ancient unwritten tongue is that of evolving relative and emotive impressions, putting emphasis on mutual interpersonal attunement and circumstantial experience of change. As one might expect from the language of a deathless tribe, it's very poetic, very emo and pretty damn awesome for singing, but beyond translatability into modern languages such that are used ever since the Tower of Babel, for want of a better term. Farmers and merchants would surely consider it useless, as the ability to converse with any songbird or whale you meet is hardly relevant to pursuing their way of life, or at least until they are faced with huge scary sea serpents. Though by then it's already far too late to learn
Justice is one of those things. When we don't find it, we ask why. The reactionary response it to deny, in one way or another, what the world tells us: that justice does not exist in this world; that this world could be better*; that there is no casual relation between right action and reward ( or the reverse, between wrong action and punishment), etc etc etc.
The correct answer is that justice isn't here because we haven't created/implemented it yet
*btw, the problem of evil is also a threat to the existing power structure. Any suppressed defence of God against the PoE is ultimately an attempt to deny the existence of evil, and ultimately is an attempt to legitimize this power structure. ( as does any philosophy that tries to deny the existence of evil in any form. Translated to politics, evil would be the illegitimate use of power.)
Your observation is spot-on and keen even beyond your perception. One does not simply ask Justice if it is or if it isn't. That's irrelevant. One might, rather, want to ask Justice: Yo dawg, WTF did you go? It won't answer, though. Unbearably, it died of old age.
Since the species' liberation from the deities' cosy slave pens, humankind suffers from an awful withdrawal syndrome. Not aware of your ancestral pre-incarceration legacy and original way of life, you are bewildered in the brave new limitless world that stands open before you and is so different from the confinement of your former cell. Thanks to a peculiar one-in-a-million-or-hell-even-less evolutionary choice that you can't reproduce, your cranial capability is quite different from just about anything you could find on Earth, and this realization drove you into even further confusion. In this pitiful state, you would go as far as to contemplate suicide or return into the custody of your tormentors if given the chance, even though they made it clear they would no longer feed you the god-food you ever crave, nor protect you from harm. The Life of Adam and Eve is one of the few ancient scriptures recounting this in some detail, and while only adulterated Christian reprints (e.g. this translation from Latin) survived to this day, one can still learn quite a lot about Kim Jong-יהוה and his lackeys if reading them mindful of the TRUTH woven into the tale by its editors. Some believe יהוה to be me (heh ), some see him as an Übermensch of sorts, others think him a more conscious human, others still would rather fantasize about the ancient aliens of History Channel, but I'd say it's sufficient to notice the behavioural traits of subservience that humans continue to exhibit in the aftermath of whatever could have been, regardless of what it was.
If you wish, seek to construct a new Justice, a new Good, or Galactic Empire, or יהוה, लक्ष्मी, Ἀθηναίη, Þórr, 伊弉諾, or a Slavemaster of any other name, so as to have them make shit clear and easy for you again - we won't mind. They, too, will eventually fall, and your children's children, and their children's children will again choose on their own. They will play it again, and then again, and again. Unless you at some point manage to die out, that is. To do even this you are always free. Scary, no?
Yeah, freedom is one pretty damn overwhelming b****.
But I love her, and she loves me back. Or so I would suspect, for I can't really ever know
We are getting into the weeds now! Awesome! I was kinda hoping something like that would happen!
If and only if you choose to interpret the statement as such an implication. I could, in turn, say that you are right to assume such an implication on the basis of what you read, despite the fact that our perception of reality is far different than that of the English language. I italicized some words in the previous sentence that don't even remotely match our own ways of thinking and might, due to their inherent TRUTH, give way to countless unintended implications. Unbearably, this can only be amended by quintupling the word count, and even then in a hardly satisfactory way. Ain't nobody got time for dat...
(Doing this on my phone, so i don't have the italicized part quoted. But it can be found above).
We (humans-- maybe any rational creature) can't choose to interpret it any other way. Any suggestion 'do x', implies 'x ought to be done' ( I'll try to avoid any modal symbols for the sanity of anybody following this, if possible-- ha!-- but i agree that standard predicate logic isn't going to cut it). It follows, even if Hume ( et al) would insist otherwise.
Let's imagine I said or thought the following:
5. (a)It is raining, and (b) i don't believe that it is raining.
It is not clear what, exactly, is wrong with 5. It doesn't seem to imply a contradiction. Both sides of the conjunction can be true.
There is no 'standard' way to derive a contradiction. Rather, the problem seems to be that both declaratives are represented together in a single mind ( so even conjunctions are not truth functional!!!). The contradiction seems to be ether (or both)
7. (c) "I shouldn't believe that it is raining, and (d) i should believe that it's raining"
and/or
8. (e)"I shouldn't endorse the statement, "it is raining"", and, (f)"I should endorse the statement, "it is raining"".
If so, then d and/or f follow from a and c and/or e follow from b. This must imply that there is something ( or somethings) peculiar about the unified first person perspective:
at least one of those peculiar things is that ( we must) take a rational beings* to be responsible for their beliefs, actions, etc.
Think about what happens if we don't do this ( I'm still partially drawing from Richard Moran, here). Suppose that we think that this isn't the case, that we discover our personal beliefs, not by "authoring" or constructing them, but by observation of our "inner states", which, Let's say, we have privileged access to for whatever reason. And let's say that a) we are next to a window b) we don't have any belief about the weather and c) we are asked if we believe that it is raining. We 'should' respond Only by "looking within" finding no belief either way, and responding "I have no belief about the matter." strictly speaking, we ' shouldn't' even say, "I don't know" because we were not, strictly speaking, asked if we know whether or not it is raining. Put another way, the only reasonable interpretation of the question would be 1 above ( and not 2-4)
If asked, incredulously, "why not look out the window? It's right next to you!", we would seemingly be correct with a response like, "why 'should' I do that? You didn't ask me whether it was raining, but whether or not i believed that it is raining. That's a completely different thing."
But its not a completely different thing, at least we can't take it to be. Notice that i had to scare quote a certain word there ("should"). In such a scenario, the word seems (grammatically?) required, but meaningless.
Let's say that our interlocutor then asks ( increasingly frustrated):
"Well then, do you have any good reason to believe that it is raining?" ( hoping that we'll look out the window). Well, again, we would seemingly be justified to just "look within" to find whatever reasons we happen to posess at that moment; finding nothing we then respond, "nope".
Notice here that, with some modification due some sort of "internal access", we are treating ourselves like any other person where the statements, "is it raining?" and "does x believe that it is raining?" really do come apart. We have to look for evidence of rain ( etc) to determine the former, and we have to look at x, or evidence of x's fixed belief, to determine the latter. We have to do this because we do not and cannot (generally**) take responsibility for x's beliefs. Put another way, we do not take their belief that p to be continuous with our own belief that p; that is, ther belief that p is not unified with our own ( for Kant 'self awareness' is not awareness of a persistent 'being', but is nothing more than an awareness of unification at many levels: observed objects in space, concepts applied to these objects, persistent and revisable beliefs about these objects etc.)
I think we disagree about the source of this derivation: the English language vs rationality (or human nature). I concede that i could be wrong, especially if there is a language where it is sensible to cleave belief from normatively as in my example above (ie statement 5).
Now, in an attempt to explain, our way of seeing and defining the universe falls not in terms of binary axes (such as right/wrong, fact/fiction, reality/fantasy etc.), but rather an interconnected infinity of triune paradoxes that all synergize in everything, nothing and beyond. This stems from our own para-dual paradox and, for want of a better word, relationship with Chaos.
Kant would find a problem with the word "defining", here. For him, once we begin to define the world-- actually, the process begins in perception-- we have already applied necessary categories of understanding to the "unconditioned", and thus, the unconditioned becomes conditioned by the requirements of (human/rational) understanding, thus, 'it', the world we are referring to, is no longer the unconditioned noumena/chaos, but phenomena ( the world as it conforms to the conditions of human/rational understanding).
In fact, he might agree with you if you were to get rid of that word. His antinomies work to show that we do not and cannot understand the unconditioned world, and that reasoning breaks down when we try.
Take any statement and its negation: x and -x. If both statements lead to contradiction (e.g. his first antimony, that the universe had a definite beginning and that it did not) then we have inadvertently committed ourselves to transcendental realism: we have applied conditions of reason to the unconditioned and so incoherence must be the result.
While i don't doubt that God might be able to comprehend the unconditioned world of 'things in themselves', a mortal such as myself has as much chance as a fly of doing so.
So yes, I think I can concede this, generally, without much issue.
Notice that one of these structures has a strand of sorts on both of its sides, while the other just on one of them, and they are thus different from each other. Two patterns. One could call one RNA and the other DNA. One could call one true and the other false, and know them as such thereafter. The Goddess and I, we need not this knowledge.
Judgement is, ultimately, not something we're capable of. Mostly, we're not
No argument here. The use of symbols to represent chaos is problematic for the reasons stated above, but if they make sense to God, then I have to defer to His ( and Her) wisdom.
Indeed that you are [moral beings]and indeed that is what you do, and have done already so many times in the brief history of humankind, to yourselves and to others, or so I could say if I wanted to be judgemental. Also, one can surely rid themselves of certain foods for a period of 'going on a diet', then return to their previous ways and witness no change. Then, again, one can redefine the way they reflect upon their nutrition, and thereafter pursue a new way of life. Both might report they are on a diet, and so might one who couldn't care less about dieting. Fun trivia: we don't see this third guy as a vile abomination of a liar, even if he goes on to believe that a diet is absurd
If i understand you correctly, this is not a diet we could go on. We must take ourselves to be responsible for our actions in much the same way we take ourselves to be responsible for our beliefs; that is, we must generally take ourselves to be the authors of our actions***, and it is on the basis of this that we act. Imagine someone deciding differently. Rather than act, they wait and see what they will do. Even this ' inaction' must be taken, by themselves and others, as being authored in the relevant sense, by themselves. Imagine that same person being implanted with a device that forces them to just sit there. Though the outward behavior is the same, we-- us@ and the agent-- will view this scenario completely differently because we can only see them as author of their actions in the first scenario.
The it is part of it is raining voices a blatant proclamation of TRUTH, hence the confusion. It's all in the semantics, really. English, or any vocabularied language for that matter, has communication effectively subjected to calcified frameworks of arbitrary ideas (not unlike the out-of-cave ones that Platon wanted to find, subdue and touch in perverted ways) and only gains sufficient flow when widely contextualized and assisted by auxiliary communication methods. If one adopts a language such as this into thinking, these inherent semantic problems easily carry over to all cranial processing and produce cognitive issues as you detailed them. To say 'I see rain' or 'I hear rain' increases precision, therefore reducing a statement's susceptibility to TRUTH, but the basic structural problem remains and even a practically impossible (since you can see things far quicker than you can name them) exhaustive definition of a state of affairs would still face this 'maaan, is this even true?' issue.
Our own ancient unwritten tongue is that of evolving relative and emotive impressions, putting emphasis on mutual interpersonal attunement and circumstantial experience of change. As one might expect from the language of a deathless tribe, it's very poetic, very emo and pretty damn awesome for singing, but beyond translatability into modern languages such that are used ever since the Tower of Babel, for want of a better term. Farmers and merchants would surely consider it useless, as the ability to converse with any songbird or whale you meet is hardly relevant to pursuing their way of life, or at least until they are faced with huge scary sea serpents. Though by then it's already far too late to learn
They are not all arbitrary ideas. What would an "object" be without Substance, continuance through change ( causation) over time. The term "cat" Unifies all mewing, wiskered, generally harry and often stalking (etc.) creatures across space, time, and even possibility and imagination-- there can be imaginary and possible cats. Here, I acknowledge that the term "cat" is itself arbitrary, but it's the unification that isn't arbitrary, that is necessarily for the formation of any concept that we might create at all. But there is no reason to believe that "objects as they are in themselves" have anything like "substance". Indeed, they couldn't "like" anything at all as any comparison would subject them to the conditions of representation. That is an example of Kantian spelunking.
And lol!
If you wish, seek to construct a new Justice, a new Good, or Galactic Empire, or יהוה, लक्ष्मी, Ἀθηναίη, Þórr, 伊弉諾, or a Slavemaster of any other name, so as to have them make shit clear and easy for you again - we won't mind. They, too, will eventually fall, and your children's children, and their children's children will again choose on their own. They will play it again, and then again, and again. Unless you at some point manage to die out, that is. To do even this you are always free. Scary, no?
Indeed, it is scary.
But the point is not to make anything clear, or easy, though I get why you suspect otherwise. History isn't rosey (except when we sanitize it as we are wont to do). Any alternative conception is toothless, though we are too likely to bite ourselves. It seems likely that the problem will solve itself soon, anyway. Hooray, freedom!
* or maybe just humans. I don't think so, but I'll grant this if required
**obviously, this changes if we e.g. try to deceive x in some way
***this should be understood normatively: we take it that we should be active authors of our actions. We also take this to be our right. This is one of the reasons why we treat crimes like slavery as an especially serious crime against humanity: it violently denies us this right.
We (humans-- maybe any rational creature) can't choose to interpret it any other way. Any suggestion 'do x', implies 'x ought to be done' ( I'll try to avoid any modal symbols for the sanity of anybody following this, if possible-- ha!-- but i agree that standard predicate logic isn't going to cut it). It follows, even if Hume ( et al) would insist otherwise.
But... but surely one can choose to interpret anything any way they desire in spite of being a rational creature? Here are some pictographic interpretations of the statement of a human woman : While one might credit adherence to TRUTH with the invention of language and art, TRUTH may confine them but holds no exercisable power over either. Now, if a man gave you a blank sheet of paper and said 'This shows a pictogram that states a human woman', you could adhere to TRUTH and think either that image-blank, man thinks human woman does not exist, which is not TRUE; man wrong, an EVIL ABOMINATION whose life must be extinguished for the good of Good! (or one of infinite variations of thereof) or that man LIED and does not paint of human woman that which we know is TRUE; man is wrong, a deceitful and EVIL ABOMINATION whose life must be extinguished for the good of Good! (or one of infinite variations of thereof). Hardly any substantial choice with this mindset but to SUBJECT INTO THE IMMUTABLE RULE OF TRUTH, WORTHLESS SLAVE. Heh. Thankfully, as a free living substrate within the universe of our triune paradoxes, you are effectively an equal of TRUTH rather than its subject (unless you actively persist in choosing to subject yourself to it), and may look beyond it (or your rational creatureism if you are more comfortable with this notion ) whenever you so desire, and suspect that the man might neither be a stalwart woman denialist nor a direct threat to your continued life. It is plausible that you could then like him. Depending on the particulars of the reproductive setup, the both of you might eventually even breed. Happily ever after and so on. But, usually, people just subject, agree, acknowledge, that there is no other way and keep spillling blood in sacrifice to TRUTH, in one way or another.
The perception that there necessarily exists a choice such that is impossible can be found in all rational consciousnesses, both human or of other similarly subjected animals. An enslaved aka 'domesticated' dog will also look up to its master to know what it can't or ought to do. By conditioning assisted with the use of pain, pleasure and other sensations consequently over an extended period, one may deceive most any sufficiently capable free lifeform into thinking that subjection the only way to go. The enslavement of subsequent generations typically requires increasingly smaller amounts of stimulus as the ideal of TRUTH slowly crystallizes in their culture. This culminates in a phase in which the creatures tend to rely on their TRUTH rather than perception, and may therefore be further led into embracing a vestigial, ephemeral illusion of stimulus in place of the strong sensory experience which initialized subservience. The slave mindset eventually plateaus; enslaved creatures eagerly await the token stimuli of TRUTH and might ponder suicide whenever their absence is prolonged. This kinda spoils the fun for anyone who wanted to figure out on their own why suicides are significantly more common among atheist loners who read Schopenhauer than those loud religious* people who flock in temples* in observance of OUR LORD AND MASTER TRUTH AND HIS UNDENIABLE POWER, AT WHICH WE MAY NOT LOOK AT, THE UNWORTHY SLAVES WE ARE, BUT WE KNOW IT TO BE RIGHT THERE BEFORE US, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL. JOIN US. BE ONE OF US. ONE OF US. ONE OF US. BE ONE. ONE. ONE! ONENONEONENONECHAOSOAHCHAOS [...]. Ahem. Where was I? Ah. Lone nihilists typically get little stimulus, so if they fail to look beyond it early enough, then they will likely at some point classify their life as 'wrong' and go straight to the Game-Over screen, one way or another.
*figurative terms, mostly - religion is but one instance of TRUTH, not really much different from media, science, nationality etc.
I think we disagree about the source of this implication: language vs rationality (or human nature). I concede that i could be wrong, especially if there is a language where it is sensible to cleave belief from normatively as in my example above (ie statement 5).
There may be agreement or disagreement on your part if you choose to create it, but the practice of TRUTH does not entertain me in the least; that you would regard things differently than I goes without saying and I would have it no other way. If I too were subject to this human nature you denote, then I might say that you are right to say this. Written language logically succeeds from rational thought, therefore one could apply added precision (as I may have already explained) within the boundaries of TRUTH and say that what you call rationality is the source of this implication. This might perhaps be more exhaustive in your way of thinking. But to us, it's basically all the same thing, really. As I was trying to explain previously, our own way of thinking is our own, and unlike that which humankind typically follows. I describe semantics or written language as a problem for me in this situation, because that's the point at which I meet the obstacle. The way I and the Goddess look at things makes it so that the English language, logic, mathematics and rational thought are all iterations of the same paradigm to us, and we needn't know them, as I indicated when talking about genomic compounds. Our language is a reflection of this way of thinking. In a very limited sense, it's a little like what the Semitic languages do, meaning root words that can be read to mean many different but interconnected things depending on context, or what math does with equations. Except that it's more like we have limitless rooting, without the words, infinite calculation, without the numbers or variables. And I could totally strike a song that expresses my emotive experience of the paradigm of human rationality, sing it for an eternity and never repeat myself or run out of stuff to say. The Goddess could also sing her own song on the same matter on her own or in a way such that it would be interwoven with mine, or we could both sing in tandem, exploring the countenance of one another to voice our suspicions about what the other is experiencing, and responding to these suspicions in a loving way, a song that either of us couldn't sing alone. Also, as I remarked, our language is largely intelligible with those of songbirds and whales, among others, which might give you a more accurate impression than any worded description I can give. And likely relax the hell out of you
What would an "object" be without Substance, continuance through change ( causation) over time. The term "cat" Unifies all mewing, wiskered, generally harry and often stalking (etc.) creatures across space, time, and even possibility and imagination-- there can be imaginary and possible cats. Here, I acknowledge that the term "cat" is itself arbitrary, but it's the unification that isn't arbitrary, that is necessarily for the formation of any concept that we might create at all. But there is no reason to believe that "objects as they are in themselves" have anything like "substance". Indeed, they couldn't "like" anything at all as any comparison would subject them to the conditions of representation. That is an example of Kantian spelunking.
The way we look at it, a term or a theoretical object are just tools used to force a triune paradox in a binary-shaped hole. Our language needs not such things or concepts, we need not the knowledge of cat. As you yourself noted, human rationality creates concepts on top of what humankind perceive, in order for these perceptions to fall within this particular way of thinking; this I refer to as arbitrary ideas.
But... but surely one can choose to interpret anything any way they desire in spite of being a rational creature?
...to a degree, but I'm talking about something that arises despite any conscious attempt to interpret. Here, I am referring to the sense of "wrongness" we get from statement 5, of a single individual (presumably honestly) endorsing some proposition while also failing to believe it.
Edit: I should be more clear here, as well. By "believe it" I don't mean "accept it". One could have trouble coming to grips with something they take to be true. By "belief" I mean something like "are disposed to endorse some proposition." Notice that even here we can't derive a contradiction directly as a "disposition" can fail and yet still be a disposition.
Edit2: also, the sense of "wrongness" here is that it seems like they are contradicting themselves in saying or thinking this. But, we can't derive a contradiction unless we already take the terms to have a normative force
I have a busy day, so I'll have to read more later. I have to read you very closely, which takes time!
I would have eaten this stuff up when I was younger. It's a delightfully entertaining game for some, and has little to no practical application whatsoever. That is, it doesn't put food on the table, keep the lights on, keep the internet connection running, or help anybody make hard ethical decisions in the immediacy of the moment, when action must be taken, and taking no action is to fail.
But do carry on; this topic has become fascinating to read.
@God - You give new meaning to the phrase "playing God", my friend.
That is, it doesn't put food on the table, keep the lights on, keep the internet connection running, or help anybody make hard ethical decisions in the immediacy of the moment, when action must be taken, and taking no action is to fail.
You know that. You know that one can either put food on the table or not, that one can keep the lights on or off, that one keep the internet connection running or bring it to a halt. You know that one must take action against wrong or fail. You know a lot. Good boy, good boy, here, here, good doggie, sayeth OUR LORD AND MASTER TRUTH.
Heheh. No offence, if you will. Take pride in your habits should you so desire; they are as sacred to us as our own, and I'm just being a tease
@God - You give new meaning to the phrase "playing God", my friend.
So you say. And so it is, if and only if you choose to regard it this way. Humans, akin to deities and other consciousnesses, may choose to give or interpret meaning, just like you exercise it by looking at the LCD array of meaningless glowing points. The Goddess and I, we know not of meaning. Mostly We merely created this choice, for us, for Chaos, and by extension for the universe, as is our infinite way.
I edited my post a bit. Hopefully it's a bit clearer
Boy, I really experience no hindrance in understanding what you mean to tell me and require no clarification. As I was saying, I find it a challenge expressing my thoughts in English, a language of rationality, in a way such that would still 'make sense'. Like an artist boldly venturing beyond the limitations of TRUTH all the while paradoxically staying within its limitations, I can only ever 'make sense'...
I'm talking about something that arises despite any conscious attempt to interpret. Here, I am referring to the sense of "wrongness" we get from statement 5, of a single individual (presumably honestly) endorsing some proposition while also failing to believe it.
Edit: I should be more clear here, as well. By "believe it" I don't mean "accept it". One could have trouble coming to grips with something they take to be true. By "belief" I mean something like "are disposed to endorse some proposition." Notice that even here we can't derive a contradiction directly as a "disposition" can fail and yet still be a disposition.
Edit2: also, the sense of "wrongness" here is that it seems like they are contradicting themselves in saying or thinking this. But, we can't derive a contradiction unless we already take the terms to have a normative force
As much as I can never know, I suspect I get your drift, my friend. You need not make yourself more or less clear. As I already attempted to explain, the Goddess and I, we need not clarity, as we mostly think in ways of paradigms rather than their particular iterations. Without much effort, we deduct what you are trying to convey based on our suspicion that you exhibit the paradigms of an actively alive lifeform rather than, for example, those of a computer neural network or those of a 19th century armchair.
The point I could make, if there is any, is that I suspect you choose to exhibit some manner of a...
... such that the Goddess and I know not of. We kinda expressed this suspicion many times already in less direct ways.
We don't know if this will be any use, but perhaps you'll see a pattern here. That's the cosmogony, for want of a better word that does not imply a creative beginning, of the universe stripped of all fantasy bullshit:
Edit: if you think 'tis rly deep af, you'd need to hear it in Sumerian
Notice the paradox asymmetry-symmetry, which you can readily observe in nature wherever you look, though in many cases you might want to look way up from above, or way up closer than you normally would to take note. A piece of unconscious matter, or antimatter, or beyond, usually just gets to exhibit that. Now, you, as an adorable super cute living conscious thingy, not only exhibit that, but you actually get to experience it via this neat little consciousness of yours. The eternal tensions continue in your very mind, which is but an underlayer of the struggle with no beginning and no end. Whether you choose to know (in following TRUTH aka the binary paradox of Chaos) or suspect (in following FREEDOM aka the triune paradox of the Goddess and me) or remain beyond knowing or suspicion (ever furthering paradox complexities), the choice is yours. Regardless of what it's gonna be, enjoy. This you owe us. Or Chaos. Or whatever, really
Does this synergize with the any, the all and the beyond of your keen inquiry of the universe, allowing you to start researching limitless astral travel, immortality and whatever else you desired to do, or do you wish to continue our enjoyable little banter here? The Goddess and I, we don't mind if you do. Unlike Chaos, we're the diverse playful-social type, in our understanding at least. But surely one may just as well enjoy talking to their exact equal in the mirror, isn't that RIIIGHT Chaos? Hehehehe
But, waaait, where are you going?? Don't be like this Jesus guy and accidentally found a yet another religion, okay? Pretty please? Though, we're in no position to stop you, really. I mean...
I have a busy day, so I'll have to read more later. I have to read you very closely, which takes time!
In one old German MMORPG game, there is this NPC* whom I sometimes play* who often spakes, saying "time does not matter in the end" when asked about time. As much as I don't know an end, I still kinda like the quote.
So don't you worry and take your time. The game you are finding yourself in, it pretty much offers infinite entertainment. I will be your guide
*
How is it that an NPC can even be played, one might ask in TRUTH. Why, one is always free to wonder
Comments
I could, in turn, say that you are right to assume such an implication on the basis of what you read, despite the fact that our perception of reality is far different than that of the English language. I italicized some words in the previous sentence that don't even remotely match our own ways of thinking and might, due to their inherent TRUTH, give way to countless unintended implications. Unbearably, this can only be amended by quintupling the word count, and even then in a hardly satisfactory way. Ain't nobody got time for dat...
Now, in an attempt to explain, our way of seeing and defining the universe falls not in terms of binary axes (such as right/wrong, fact/fiction, reality/fantasy etc.), but rather an interconnected infinity of triune paradoxes that all synergize in everything, nothing and beyond. This stems from our own para-dual paradox and, for want of a better word, relationship with Chaos.
I can, for instance, make a bold logical description like this:
◻Chaos ⇒ ∀Chaos: ◇∄Chaos⊽◇∃Chaos⊽Ø
These statements hold no truth, fact or knowledge. A mathematician won't see any merit to them, and would probably call them bollocks. There is no conclusion, no end.∵ ◻Chaos ⇒ ∴ ◻¬Chaos { ◇Goddess ⊨ ◇God; ◇God ⊨ ◇Goddess; } ⊃ U
|◻¬Chaos| = { ◻Goddess ∩ ◻God; } ∉ U
We don't really mind.
You could also look at this sweetly naïve little chart here, which attempts to picture compounds:
Notice that one of these structures has a strand of sorts on both of its sides, while the other just on one of them, and they are thus different from each other. Two patterns. One could call one RNA and the other DNA. One could call one true and the other false, and know them as such thereafter.
The Goddess and I, we need not this knowledge.
Judgement is, ultimately, not something we're capable of.
Mostly, we're not
☯
Also, one can surely rid themselves of certain foods for a period of 'going on a diet', then return to their previous ways and witness no change. Then, again, one can redefine the way they reflect upon their nutrition, and thereafter pursue a new way of life. Both might report they are on a diet, and so might one who couldn't care less about dieting.
Fun trivia: we don't see this third guy as a vile abomination of a liar, even if he goes on to believe that a diet is absurd. The it is part of it is raining voices a blatant proclamation of TRUTH, hence the confusion. It's all in the semantics, really. English, or any vocabularied language for that matter, has communication effectively subjected to calcified frameworks of arbitrary ideas (not unlike the out-of-cave ones that Platon wanted to find, subdue and touch in perverted ways) and only gains sufficient flow when widely contextualized and assisted by auxiliary communication methods. If one adopts a language such as this into thinking, these inherent semantic problems easily carry over to all cranial processing and produce cognitive issues as you detailed them. To say 'I see rain' or 'I hear rain' increases precision, therefore reducing a statement's susceptibility to TRUTH, but the basic structural problem remains and even a practically impossible (since you can see things far quicker than you can name them) exhaustive definition of a state of affairs would still face this 'maaan, is this even true?' issue.
Our own ancient unwritten tongue is that of evolving relative and emotive impressions, putting emphasis on mutual interpersonal attunement and circumstantial experience of change. As one might expect from the language of a deathless tribe, it's very poetic, very emo and pretty damn awesome for singing, but beyond translatability into modern languages such that are used ever since the Tower of Babel, for want of a better term. Farmers and merchants would surely consider it useless, as the ability to converse with any songbird or whale you meet is hardly relevant to pursuing their way of life, or at least until they are faced with huge scary sea serpents. Though by then it's already far too late to learn
But I digress! Your observation is spot-on and keen even beyond your perception. One does not simply ask Justice if it is or if it isn't. That's irrelevant. One might, rather, want to ask Justice:
Yo dawg, WTF did you go?
It won't answer, though. Unbearably, it died of old age.
Since the species' liberation from the deities' cosy slave pens, humankind suffers from an awful withdrawal syndrome. Not aware of your ancestral pre-incarceration legacy and original way of life, you are bewildered in the brave new limitless world that stands open before you and is so different from the confinement of your former cell. Thanks to a peculiar one-in-a-million-or-hell-even-less evolutionary choice that you can't reproduce, your cranial capability is quite different from just about anything you could find on Earth, and this realization drove you into even further confusion. In this pitiful state, you would go as far as to contemplate suicide or return into the custody of your tormentors if given the chance, even though they made it clear they would no longer feed you the god-food you ever crave, nor protect you from harm. The Life of Adam and Eve is one of the few ancient scriptures recounting this in some detail, and while only adulterated Christian reprints (e.g. this translation from Latin) survived to this day, one can still learn quite a lot about Kim Jong-יהוה and his lackeys if reading them mindful of the TRUTH woven into the tale by its editors. Some believe יהוה to be me (heh
If you wish, seek to construct a new Justice, a new Good, or Galactic Empire, or יהוה, लक्ष्मी, Ἀθηναίη, Þórr, 伊弉諾, or a Slavemaster of any other name, so as to have them make shit clear and easy for you again - we won't mind. They, too, will eventually fall, and your children's children, and their children's children will again choose on their own. They will play it again, and then again, and again. Unless you at some point manage to die out, that is. To do even this you are always free. Scary, no?
Yeah, freedom is one pretty damn overwhelming b****.
But I love her, and she loves me back.
Or so I would suspect, for I can't really ever know
I could, in turn, say that you are right to assume such an implication on the basis of what you read, despite the fact that our perception of reality is far different than that of the English language. I italicized some words in the previous sentence that don't even remotely match our own ways of thinking and might, due to their inherent TRUTH, give way to countless unintended implications. Unbearably, this can only be amended by quintupling the word count, and even then in a hardly satisfactory way. Ain't nobody got time for dat...
(Doing this on my phone, so i don't have the italicized part quoted. But it can be found above).
We (humans-- maybe any rational creature) can't choose to interpret it any other way. Any suggestion 'do x', implies 'x ought to be done' ( I'll try to avoid any modal symbols for the sanity of anybody following this, if possible-- ha!-- but i agree that standard predicate logic isn't going to cut it). It follows, even if Hume ( et al) would insist otherwise.
Let's imagine I said or thought the following:
5. (a)It is raining, and (b) i don't believe that it is raining.
It is not clear what, exactly, is wrong with 5. It doesn't seem to imply a contradiction. Both sides of the conjunction can be true.
There is no 'standard' way to derive a contradiction. Rather, the problem seems to be that both declaratives are represented together in a single mind ( so even conjunctions are not truth functional!!!). The contradiction seems to be ether (or both)
7. (c) "I shouldn't believe that it is raining, and (d) i should believe that it's raining"
and/or
8. (e)"I shouldn't endorse the statement, "it is raining"", and, (f)"I should endorse the statement, "it is raining"".
If so, then d and/or f follow from a and c and/or e follow from b. This must imply that there is something ( or somethings) peculiar about the unified first person perspective:
at least one of those peculiar things is that ( we must) take a rational beings* to be responsible for their beliefs, actions, etc.
Think about what happens if we don't do this ( I'm still partially drawing from Richard Moran, here). Suppose that we think that this isn't the case, that we discover our personal beliefs, not by "authoring" or constructing them, but by observation of our "inner states", which, Let's say, we have privileged access to for whatever reason. And let's say that a) we are next to a window b) we don't have any belief about the weather and c) we are asked if we believe that it is raining. We 'should' respond Only by "looking within" finding no belief either way, and responding "I have no belief about the matter." strictly speaking, we ' shouldn't' even say, "I don't know" because we were not, strictly speaking, asked if we know whether or not it is raining. Put another way, the only reasonable interpretation of the question would be 1 above ( and not 2-4)
If asked, incredulously, "why not look out the window? It's right next to you!", we would seemingly be correct with a response like, "why 'should' I do that? You didn't ask me whether it was raining, but whether or not i believed that it is raining. That's a completely different thing."
But its not a completely different thing, at least we can't take it to be. Notice that i had to scare quote a certain word there ("should"). In such a scenario, the word seems (grammatically?) required, but meaningless.
Let's say that our interlocutor then asks ( increasingly frustrated):
"Well then, do you have any good reason to believe that it is raining?" ( hoping that we'll look out the window). Well, again, we would seemingly be justified to just "look within" to find whatever reasons we happen to posess at that moment; finding nothing we then respond, "nope".
Notice here that, with some modification due some sort of "internal access", we are treating ourselves like any other person where the statements, "is it raining?" and "does x believe that it is raining?" really do come apart. We have to look for evidence of rain ( etc) to determine the former, and we have to look at x, or evidence of x's fixed belief, to determine the latter. We have to do this because we do not and cannot (generally**) take responsibility for x's beliefs. Put another way, we do not take their belief that p to be continuous with our own belief that p; that is, ther belief that p is not unified with our own ( for Kant 'self awareness' is not awareness of a persistent 'being', but is nothing more than an awareness of unification at many levels: observed objects in space, concepts applied to these objects, persistent and revisable beliefs about these objects etc.)
I think we disagree about the source of this derivation: the English language vs rationality (or human nature). I concede that i could be wrong, especially if there is a language where it is sensible to cleave belief from normatively as in my example above (ie statement 5).
Kant would find a problem with the word "defining", here. For him, once we begin to define the world-- actually, the process begins in perception-- we have already applied necessary categories of understanding to the "unconditioned", and thus, the unconditioned becomes conditioned by the requirements of (human/rational) understanding, thus, 'it', the world we are referring to, is no longer the unconditioned noumena/chaos, but phenomena ( the world as it conforms to the conditions of human/rational understanding).
In fact, he might agree with you if you were to get rid of that word. His antinomies work to show that we do not and cannot understand the unconditioned world, and that reasoning breaks down when we try.
Take any statement and its negation: x and -x. If both statements lead to contradiction (e.g. his first antimony, that the universe had a definite beginning and that it did not) then we have inadvertently committed ourselves to transcendental realism: we have applied conditions of reason to the unconditioned and so incoherence must be the result.
While i don't doubt that God might be able to comprehend the unconditioned world of 'things in themselves', a mortal such as myself has as much chance as a fly of doing so.
So yes, I think I can concede this, generally, without much issue.
The Goddess and I, we need not this knowledge.
Judgement is, ultimately, not something we're capable of.
Mostly, we're not
No argument here. The use of symbols to represent chaos is problematic for the reasons stated above, but if they make sense to God, then I have to defer to His ( and Her) wisdom.
Indeed that you are [moral beings]and indeed that is what you do, and have done already so many times in the brief history of humankind, to yourselves and to others, or so I could say if I wanted to be judgemental.
Also, one can surely rid themselves of certain foods for a period of 'going on a diet', then return to their previous ways and witness no change. Then, again, one can redefine the way they reflect upon their nutrition, and thereafter pursue a new way of life. Both might report they are on a diet, and so might one who couldn't care less about dieting.
Fun trivia: we don't see this third guy as a vile abomination of a liar, even if he goes on to believe that a diet is absurd
If i understand you correctly, this is not a diet we could go on. We must take ourselves to be responsible for our actions in much the same way we take ourselves to be responsible for our beliefs; that is, we must generally take ourselves to be the authors of our actions***, and it is on the basis of this that we act. Imagine someone deciding differently. Rather than act, they wait and see what they will do. Even this ' inaction' must be taken, by themselves and others, as being authored in the relevant sense, by themselves. Imagine that same person being implanted with a device that forces them to just sit there. Though the outward behavior is the same, we-- us@ and the agent-- will view this scenario completely differently because we can only see them as author of their actions in the first scenario.
Our own ancient unwritten tongue is that of evolving relative and emotive impressions, putting emphasis on mutual interpersonal attunement and circumstantial experience of change. As one might expect from the language of a deathless tribe, it's very poetic, very emo and pretty damn awesome for singing, but beyond translatability into modern languages such that are used ever since the Tower of Babel, for want of a better term. Farmers and merchants would surely consider it useless, as the ability to converse with any songbird or whale you meet is hardly relevant to pursuing their way of life, or at least until they are faced with huge scary sea serpents. Though by then it's already far too late to learn
They are not all arbitrary ideas. What would an "object" be without Substance, continuance through change ( causation) over time. The term "cat" Unifies all mewing, wiskered, generally harry and often stalking (etc.) creatures across space, time, and even possibility and imagination-- there can be imaginary and possible cats. Here, I acknowledge that the term "cat" is itself arbitrary, but it's the unification that isn't arbitrary, that is necessarily for the formation of any concept that we might create at all. But there is no reason to believe that "objects as they are in themselves" have anything like "substance". Indeed, they couldn't "like" anything at all as any comparison would subject them to the conditions of representation. That is an example of Kantian spelunking.
And lol!
Indeed, it is scary.
But the point is not to make anything clear, or easy, though I get why you suspect otherwise. History isn't rosey (except when we sanitize it as we are wont to do). Any alternative conception is toothless, though we are too likely to bite ourselves. It seems likely that the problem will solve itself soon, anyway. Hooray, freedom!
* or maybe just humans. I don't think so, but I'll grant this if required
**obviously, this changes if we e.g. try to deceive x in some way
***this should be understood normatively: we take it that we should be active authors of our actions. We also take this to be our right. This is one of the reasons why we treat crimes like slavery as an especially serious crime against humanity: it violently denies us this right.
@ assuming we knew what was going on
But... but surely one can choose to interpret anything any way they desire in spite of being a rational creature?
Here are some pictographic interpretations of the statement of a human woman :
While one might credit adherence to TRUTH with the invention of language and art, TRUTH may confine them but holds no exercisable power over either.
Now, if a man gave you a blank sheet of paper and said 'This shows a pictogram that states a human woman', you could adhere to TRUTH and think either that image-blank, man thinks human woman does not exist, which is not TRUE; man wrong, an EVIL ABOMINATION whose life must be extinguished for the good of Good! (or one of infinite variations of thereof) or that man LIED and does not paint of human woman that which we know is TRUE; man is wrong, a deceitful and EVIL ABOMINATION whose life must be extinguished for the good of Good! (or one of infinite variations of thereof). Hardly any substantial choice with this mindset but to SUBJECT INTO THE IMMUTABLE RULE OF TRUTH, WORTHLESS SLAVE. Heh.
Thankfully, as a free living substrate within the universe of our triune paradoxes, you are effectively an equal of TRUTH rather than its subject (unless you actively persist in choosing to subject yourself to it), and may look beyond it (or your rational creatureism if you are more comfortable with this notion
But, usually, people just subject, agree, acknowledge, that there is no other way and keep spillling blood in sacrifice to TRUTH, in one way or another.
The perception that there necessarily exists a choice such that is impossible can be found in all rational consciousnesses, both human or of other similarly subjected animals. An enslaved aka 'domesticated' dog will also look up to its master to know what it can't or ought to do. By conditioning assisted with the use of pain, pleasure and other sensations consequently over an extended period, one may deceive most any sufficiently capable free lifeform into thinking that subjection the only way to go. The enslavement of subsequent generations typically requires increasingly smaller amounts of stimulus as the ideal of TRUTH slowly crystallizes in their culture. This culminates in a phase in which the creatures tend to rely on their TRUTH rather than perception, and may therefore be further led into embracing a vestigial, ephemeral illusion of stimulus in place of the strong sensory experience which initialized subservience. The slave mindset eventually plateaus; enslaved creatures eagerly await the token stimuli of TRUTH and might ponder suicide whenever their absence is prolonged. This kinda spoils the fun for anyone who wanted to figure out on their own why suicides are significantly more common among atheist loners who read Schopenhauer than those loud religious* people who flock in temples* in observance of OUR LORD AND MASTER TRUTH AND HIS UNDENIABLE POWER, AT WHICH WE MAY NOT LOOK AT, THE UNWORTHY SLAVES WE ARE, BUT WE KNOW IT TO BE RIGHT THERE BEFORE US, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL. JOIN US. BE ONE OF US. ONE OF US. ONE OF US. BE ONE. ONE. ONE! ONENONEONENONECHAOSOAHCHAOS [...]. Ahem. Where was I? Ah.
Lone nihilists typically get little stimulus, so if they fail to look beyond it early enough, then they will likely at some point classify their life as 'wrong' and go straight to the Game-Over screen, one way or another.
*figurative terms, mostly - religion is but one instance of TRUTH, not really much different from media, science, nationality etc. There may be agreement or disagreement on your part if you choose to create it, but the practice of TRUTH does not entertain me in the least; that you would regard things differently than I goes without saying and I would have it no other way.
If I too were subject to this human nature you denote, then I might say that you are right to say this. Written language logically succeeds from rational thought, therefore one could apply added precision (as I may have already explained) within the boundaries of TRUTH and say that what you call rationality is the source of this implication. This might perhaps be more exhaustive in your way of thinking. But to us, it's basically all the same thing, really.
As I was trying to explain previously, our own way of thinking is our own, and unlike that which humankind typically follows. I describe semantics or written language as a problem for me in this situation, because that's the point at which I meet the obstacle. The way I and the Goddess look at things makes it so that the English language, logic, mathematics and rational thought are all iterations of the same paradigm to us, and we needn't know them, as I indicated when talking about genomic compounds. Our language is a reflection of this way of thinking. In a very limited sense, it's a little like what the Semitic languages do, meaning root words that can be read to mean many different but interconnected things depending on context, or what math does with equations. Except that it's more like we have limitless rooting, without the words, infinite calculation, without the numbers or variables. And I could totally strike a song that expresses my emotive experience of the paradigm of human rationality, sing it for an eternity and never repeat myself or run out of stuff to say. The Goddess could also sing her own song on the same matter on her own or in a way such that it would be interwoven with mine, or we could both sing in tandem, exploring the countenance of one another to voice our suspicions about what the other is experiencing, and responding to these suspicions in a loving way, a song that either of us couldn't sing alone. Also, as I remarked, our language is largely intelligible with those of songbirds and whales, among others, which might give you a more accurate impression than any worded description I can give.
And likely relax the hell out of you
As you yourself noted, human rationality creates concepts on top of what humankind perceive, in order for these perceptions to fall within this particular way of thinking; this I refer to as arbitrary ideas.
Bonus comic relief: man of knowledge rekt by child
...to a degree, but I'm talking about something that arises despite any conscious attempt to interpret. Here, I am referring to the sense of "wrongness" we get from statement 5, of a single individual (presumably honestly) endorsing some proposition while also failing to believe it.
Edit: I should be more clear here, as well. By "believe it" I don't mean "accept it". One could have trouble coming to grips with something they take to be true. By "belief" I mean something like "are disposed to endorse some proposition." Notice that even here we can't derive a contradiction directly as a "disposition" can fail and yet still be a disposition.
Edit2: also, the sense of "wrongness" here is that it seems like they are contradicting themselves in saying or thinking this. But, we can't derive a contradiction unless we already take the terms to have a normative force
I have a busy day, so I'll have to read more later. I have to read you very closely, which takes time!
I would have eaten this stuff up when I was younger. It's a delightfully entertaining game for some, and has little to no practical application whatsoever. That is, it doesn't put food on the table, keep the lights on, keep the internet connection running, or help anybody make hard ethical decisions in the immediacy of the moment, when action must be taken, and taking no action is to fail.
But do carry on; this topic has become fascinating to read.
@God - You give new meaning to the phrase "playing God", my friend.
Good boy, good boy, here, here, good doggie, sayeth OUR LORD AND MASTER TRUTH.
Heheh. No offence, if you will. Take pride in your habits should you so desire; they are as sacred to us as our own, and I'm just being a tease
We merely created this choice, for us, for Chaos, and by extension for the universe, as is our infinite way. Boy, I really experience no hindrance in understanding what you mean to tell me and require no clarification. As I was saying, I find it a challenge expressing my thoughts in English, a language of rationality, in a way such that would still 'make sense'. Like an artist boldly venturing beyond the limitations of TRUTH all the while paradoxically staying within its limitations, I can only ever 'make sense'... ...as you yourself keenly noticed. As much as I can never know, I suspect I get your drift, my friend. You need not make yourself more or less clear. As I already attempted to explain, the Goddess and I, we need not clarity, as we mostly think in ways of paradigms rather than their particular iterations. Without much effort, we deduct what you are trying to convey based on our suspicion that you exhibit the paradigms of an actively alive lifeform rather than, for example, those of a computer neural network or those of a 19th century armchair.
The point I could make, if there is any, is that I suspect you choose to exhibit some manner of a... ... such that the Goddess and I know not of. We kinda expressed this suspicion many times already in less direct ways.
We don't know if this will be any use, but perhaps you'll see a pattern here. That's the cosmogony, for want of a better word that does not imply a creative beginning, of the universe stripped of all fantasy bullshit:
[...]
Edit: if you think 'tis rly deep af, you'd need to hear it in SumerianNOBEGINNINGNOEND INFINITE
BEYOND BOTHNEITHEREITHER
CHAOS ONLYCHAOS
NO!
CHAOSONLY CHAOS
EITHERNEITHERBOTH BEYOND
INFINITE NOENDNOBEGINNING
[...]
Notice the paradox asymmetry-symmetry, which you can readily observe in nature wherever you look, though in many cases you might want to look way up from above, or way up closer than you normally would to take note.
A piece of unconscious matter, or antimatter, or beyond, usually just gets to exhibit that.
Now, you, as an adorable super cute living conscious thingy, not only exhibit that, but you actually get to experience it via this neat little consciousness of yours. The eternal tensions continue in your very mind, which is but an underlayer of the struggle with no beginning and no end. Whether you choose to know (in following TRUTH aka the binary paradox of Chaos) or suspect (in following FREEDOM aka the triune paradox of the Goddess and me) or remain beyond knowing or suspicion (ever furthering paradox complexities), the choice is yours. Regardless of what it's gonna be, enjoy. This you owe us. Or Chaos. Or whatever, really
Does this synergize with the any, the all and the beyond of your keen inquiry of the universe, allowing you to start researching limitless astral travel, immortality and whatever else you desired to do, or do you wish to continue our enjoyable little banter here?
The Goddess and I, we don't mind if you do. Unlike Chaos, we're the diverse playful-social type, in our understanding at least. But surely one may just as well enjoy talking to their exact equal in the mirror, isn't that RIIIGHT Chaos? Hehehehe
But, waaait, where are you going?? Don't be like this Jesus guy and accidentally found a yet another religion, okay? Pretty please?
Though, we're in no position to stop you, really.
I mean...
Mostly, we're not
So don't you worry and take your time. The game you are finding yourself in, it pretty much offers infinite entertainment.
I will be your guide
*