On the Legitimacy of Israel as a State

I questioned, in a Facebook post, the legitimacy of Israel's self-proclaimed right to exist. It seems to me, anyway, that God did not give Israel to the Jews, but rather England did. And I think Palestine is the main test of Israel's right to exist.

The way Israel is treating the Palestinians is not justifiable. Israel isolates them from the outside world. It would be better if the Palestinians could leave, or become a part of Israel. But this is impossible. Why? Because Israel sees it in their best interests to isolate them. The problem, of course, is that the Palestinians probably have a more legitimate claim to that land than Israel.

Israel is forced to battle Palestine. Peace is impossible for them. Why? Because if they make peace, the Arab states will take advantage of a weak stance and attack Israel one way or another. I believe this is the case. Also, I believe that there are Arab states who might ultimately win in the conflict (if peace were made) which are worse states than Israel. States like Syria.

But really, all this is a battle more for the State of Israel than for anyone else. Israel was founded on questionable principles. The right of an ethnic-based State to be formed by an external oppressor because it's in the Bible is questionable. The right of any ethnic-based state to be formed is questionable. If Israel has any shred of legitimacy to its existence, I think the true test will be Palestine. Also, I think Israel fully realizes this, which is why they are in so much trouble about it.

Israel has very few options. They can't exterminate the Palestinians. They can't let them emigrate to Israel or elsewhere. They can't make peace with them. They can't fight them too hard. They can't fight them too soft. There are no choices for them. And the way they behave in Palestine is very similar to the way a failing regime behaves when its legitimacy comes into question. They imprison people without cause, place them in concentration camps, incite violence to legitimize violence, spend more money on security than research, and so forth. I've never been to Palestine, but from what I've read of the situation there, it's like a concentration camp. It's very similar to psychiatry. A failing regime grasping at straws to ward off its inevitable defeat.

I've had experience living in a concentration camp kind of existence. And when you're inside the concentration camp, sometimes it's a difficult decision you have to make whether to threaten or use violence or not. Because sometimes an oppressor will only respond to violence. This is a fact. I had to threaten to stab hospital wards with a pen in order to force them to bring food to my seclusion room. The decision was part of a long series of pressures I put on them (this one being the only truly violent one), which probably resulted in enough food to survive. Barely.

But oppressors all ultimately act the same. They inevitably spend all their energy on bolstering security rather than gaining knowledge or helping people. This is why fewer and fewer people choose to be psychiatrists: the pay really isn't very good, the training is exhausting, and the fact that they will be pigeonholed into an existence where they must oppress people every day really makes it hard. Why is the pay not so good? Probably because psychiatry prisons are locked down tighter than military compounds. They spend all their money on more and more traumatic seclusion rooms, rather than actually helping people, or gaining knowledge. Why don't they spend money on knowledge? Because as research comes out about psychiatry, it shows them that they're all doing it wrong; that psychiatry is an illegitimate institution.

And the fact that these oppressors act the same, when they're not bolstered by an external oppressive force, indicates that they all eventually cannibalize themselves in the end. So the smartest strategy for someone who is NOT living in a concentration camp system is non-violence. It is to put political pressure on the oppressors, forcing them to cannibalize themselves, without resorting to violence, and thereby legitimizing their oppression. The problem comes when your motivation is bad. People with bad motivation will collect up these victims of oppression and pray on their sufferings to the point of inciting them to violence. It will legitimize both oppressors, until they go to war and one oppressor is defeated. All oppressors act the same.

In a lot of ways, America is behaving the same way. But I'm not sure that the outcome for any of these oppressors is set in stone. I feel America will survive. America is a legitimate state with a troubled history of oppression. That's how I feel. But in order to survive, America has to do soul searching. This is what is happening with the Occupy / Tea Party movements. This is happening internally within the Republican Party, I'm aware, and may also be happening in the Democratic Party. Obama has made surprising decisions, such as the decision following the will of the people not to go to war with Syria. Even this decision may have been a mistake, but it's an example of soul searching.

The problem for Israel is that I'm not sure they have the luxury to be able to do soul searching, surrounded as they are by all these Arab states who do not believe in their right to exist. America is a world superpower, very rich, and having the most powerful military in the world. We can do soul searching. Allowing Israel to do soul searching for the benefit of Palestinians, unfortunately, is not very much on the to-do list for these Arab states. A lot of them are very authoritarian, and rely on strong security forces. And the problem is, these security states require some kind of propaganda to keep their publics supportive of the current regimes. Palestine is a good propaganda point for any dictator in a Muslim majority state.

So really, the right for Israel to exist is less of a test for Israel as it is a test for Arab Muslims. Are these Muslims going to point to the passages in the Qur'an which say that Jews will be hiding behind rocks and the rocks will tell them to kill them? While conveniently ignoring the passages enjoining us not to dispute with the People of the Book except by means better than mere disputation? Or are these Muslims going to work to promote more and more functional democracies at home, so they can deal with Israel intelligently? This is the test. Arabs as a nation have a right to exist on their own land, of course, but many of their states, I feel, are as illegitimate as Israel's or more so. The fate of Israel rests on the fate of Palestine. And the fate of Palestine, and Palestinians, I feel, rests on the ability for Arab Muslims to combat oppression in their own states so they can restrain their own militants from attacking Israel, and allow Israel to sort out its right to existence on its own. If Israel is purely an oppressor, the more it becomes isolated from support from the outside, the more they will cannibalize themselves. If not, they will survive, and peace will prevail.

Degenerate Times

I think it is important to note a couple of things about Buddhist prophesies. First and foremost, a prophesy is not a death sentence. We in the West are so particular about details that we often think of prophesy in the strictest possible terms. Thus, we see it as equally prophetic if Buddha prophesizes that we will live to be 10, as if I or someone prophesizes that my dog will eat a bagel at 2pm Eastern Standard Time next Monday before taking a walk. But Allah is greater than that. We can't simply confine prophesy to strictly worldly terms without any room for freedom of choice.

The two prophesies I would like to mention are Buddhist prophesies: the prophesy of degenerate times, which I believe dates back to the Buddha himself, and the Kalachakra prophesy.

In the prophesy of degenerate times, it is prophesied that our life-span will degenerate gradually over the next thousand or so years until we live to be only 10 years old. Then, there will be a 7 Days War, which of course will last seven days. It is said that the slaughter will be so great that afterwards humans will be so rare that when they encounter one another, they will kiss each other on the mouth. And after this 7 Days War, people will be so profoundly affected by the killing that they will vow never to kill again, at which point the life-span will increase to 14 years.

Gradually, over the period of a couple thousand years, people will renounce evil after evil, and the life-span will increase until it reaches 80,000 again, which is what it was before people began to degenerate. To this, I will add a couple of senses of my own: people I think will be drinking Boyds Coffee, and some will be doing Yamantaka practice. Those were what have been revealed to me through valid cognition and observation.

Now, there are a couple things to note here. As I said: a prophesy is not a death sentence. If someone were to ask me to sum up my philosophy while standing on one foot, I would tell them: it is possible to use the energy of degeneration to one's advantage. That is the prime focus of everything I've been seeking to expound upon for my entire life, and I suspect insh'Allah it will be until I die. I can't imagine me trying to teach anything else, what with my peculiar experiences. And it is an important fact.

All prophesies, including the most damning, are empty of inherent existence. So on some level, we don't know fully what they are talking about. Will the Earth be a desolate wasteland, devoid of life, after the 7 Days War? Will it be like the movie Mad Max taken to an absolute extreme? I contend no. The prophesy, I think, applies mainly to humans qua humans. It does not apply to humans qua yakshas, humans qua nagas, humans qua devas, and humans qua Buddhas. In addition to this, the prophesy applies only generally. People will probably live to be as old as maybe 30, or even older, during these times. And while human-to-human contact may be rare, a survivor human may well encounter many nagas, devas, and Buddhas in his or her quest to find other humans. The Earth will not be a desolate wasteland, but will remain rich with life. This is my opinion.

Furthermore, we have to understand an important point regarding degeneration. It is not our fault that we will live to be only 10 years old. And, we will still have brain technology as is being developed even today to make our lives more meaningful. A wandering 10-year-old after the 7 Days War may well make contact with another human over Facebook telepathically using brain technology.

The other point regarding degeneration leads into my discussion of the Kalachakra prophesy. According to this prophesy, in India, a Muslim will rise to power and claim to be the heir of an Islamic prophesy. A vast force, led by Buddha Manjushri, will then descend from the heavens, engage in holy warfare with this Muslim and his followers, and defeat them. After this, all non-Indic invaders will be routed from India, and humanity will begin to recover from the degenerate times.

As you can see, the two prophesies are related. They both refer to the point at which society ceases to degenerate. The relation is important, because it points to the very heart of the nature of degeneration. I recently became a Muslim, in addition to being a Buddhist, and my intent is to learn the very heart of this religion, as it is important to me. (I have had more intimate connection with many more Buddhas through Islam than through all my 15 years as a Buddhist.) Obviously, then, I am against the view that the Kalachakra prophesy prophesizes the downfall and defeat of Islam. But I don't think the prophesy is inauthentic.

From what I've observed of Muslims today, the ongoing trend seems to be that while they are practicing their religion, they are subtlely involved in what I would call "the cult of the white water." Ordinary water, as a metaphysical substance, is a metaphor for emptiness. In other words, emptiness is like water. It dissolves all things. It is clear. Many creatures live in it. It is vast as the sea. It forms rain. It carves mountains. And so forth. But what color is water? Well, ultimately, water is clear. However, it is also very highly correct to say that water is white. When it freezes, it is white. As it moves about, it froths at the tips of waves, and reflects lights, and ends up becoming white.

Muslims want to be like white water. They want to purify themselves to the utmost extent, become fully distilled of every little stain, and rub themselves clean all the time. They want to be at the tips of the waves, reaching into the void. But one thing they may perhaps overlook is that water is also black. It is equally correct to say water is black as it is to say it is white. Why? When water is gathered together densely in one place, if you peer into its depths, it is black. In a way, water is as black as it is white, but no less pure.

The West, for myriad historical reasons, seems to be deeply involved in "the cult of the black water." The West likes to examine physical things to their depths and uncover their deepest secrets. It also is far less concerned with purity, and riding the tips of waves, seeking to deeply immerse itself into physical phenomena.

What happens when "the cult of the white water" meets "the cult of the black water?" The result is the 7 Days War, which will culminate in at least some small realization that really, water is clear. It may manifest as white, or as black. But ultimately, it is clear. Following this, I suspect life will be much like the famous Andy Warhol movie Chelsea Girls: one side black, one side white. And the result will be purity. Clarity.

I suspect that with regards to the Kalachakra prophesy, Western countries, particularly the United States of America, will play a very important role with regards to the cult of the black water, in answer to India's cult of the white water. Manjushri, in my opinion, will probably come from America.

It is not good to become overly involved in either the cult of the white water or the cult of the black water, because water is clear. However, recognizing and honoring water manifesting as black or white, or as rainbows, and so forth, is important. Light refracted in water, or reflected, or absorbed, still remains light. And ultimately, we are beings of light. My ideas, as they stand now, have to do with blackness. I feel this is important, because too many people are overly concerned with white, while we have a natural tendency to avoid blackness. This is a mistake.

It is a human mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and as equally dangerous as any mistake, potentially costing real people their lives. I suspect that today many people in Pakistan are dying unnecessarily because overly religious Islamic zealots want their society to be pristinely pure and white in color. The Taliban won't let people listen to music, or make art, or do pretty much anything, because they want to wear robes of white. It is so dangerous to be a Muslim today, I feel, because of the resistance to experiencing Western society, which is the dominant and globalized form of society in the world today. I'm worried that concern with issues such as playing music, or drawing representative art, will condemn foreign muslims to poverty and powerlessness. Why? Because it is impossible to move the hearts and minds of the people without making movies, and you can't make movies without drawing pictures and writing music. Period.

Purity is important, but it is not that important. We have to remember that good Muslims are like doctors, and that they do not come to the healthy, but to the sick. And anyway, it is impossible to be one hundred percent pure. Frankly, the fact that the religious people most concerned with purity are the ones who do the most damage convinces me that purity is sometimes a worse evil than sin. If this isn't true, then why are so many terrorists going around calling themselves Boko Haram? The lesson from this is what I consider to be my most important and, hopefully, enduring contribution to moral knowledge everywhere. This is why, I'm certain, I have lived my life. And there is far greater to share and more contributions as well. I'm not always the best at keeping the faith, but I hope my message has reached at least some people in the right way. That is my wish.

Why Everyone should Study the Occult

I define an occult object as a cultural (or personal) artifact which carries a great deal of power. We don't need to get into talking about "magic" or "energy" or anything superstitious like that. We also don't need to examine secret societies, such as the Freemasons, and their secret initiation rites. Secret knowledge is not necessarily occult, and the occult is not necessarily secret. (A better term for this kind of thing is "esoteric.") It suffices to simply state the truth: that certain objects carry a great deal of psychological power. The power in these objects derives, I think, from the extent to which they reflect something about ourselves, and the depth to which they reflect it.

The most obvious occult object is a word. A word, of course, immediately conjures up an experience or thought, without our even thinking about it. This experience or thought is something inside us, reflected by the communication inherent in a word. Words, therefore, are occult objects.

The problem, though, with occult objects is that the meaning they express with regards to their reflection of what's in our minds is not necessarily accurate. For example. Usually, growing up, I've always sided with political liberals. And as a lot of people know, I'm definitely very anti-psychiatry. So, naturally, I was quite confused to discover that most liberals favor increased psychiatric treatment of the mentally ill, while conservatives are perfectly content to leave treatment to the birds. Being fundamentally opposed to psychiatric treatment of any kind, I found this state of affairs very frustrating. However, there is a definite cause. The cause, I think, can be traced back to the occult.

This is the unexamined liberal philosophy regarding psychiatry: "We need to favor psychiatric treatment of mental illness because it tends to reduce symptoms." Let's unpack it a little more: "We need to favor a scientific, behaviorism based treatment of mental illness which involves third-person empirical studies of the human mind as reflected by human behaviors, because the results of such treatment reduce the behaviors of the mentally ill which frighten us." If a liberal were to really examine this statement, he would come to the conclusion that it logically implies the following: "Let's scramble up the brains of the mentally ill with a knife and turn them into drooling idiots because at least then they don't shout as much." Wait... where did we go wrong? That's obviously horrifying. There must be a mistake somewhere. However, according to the liberal philosophy, mistakes of this sort aren't really a problem. I've actually heard a hospital nurse make this remark, "They made a lot of mistakes, back then, but they didn't really know any better."

It baffles me that anyone could reasonably believe that scrambling up a person's brain with a knife, in full, scientific knowledge of exactly what the brain actually does, could possibly be a morally justified act. In any occasion. In order to understand why a liberal could come to such a monstrous conclusion, it took, for me anyway, a great deal of meditation on liberal philosophy. But I'm fairly convinced the reason can be traced reliably back to the occult, and to illustrate how, it may be best to start with the occult objects involved.

One form of political liberal moral philosophy (in this country anyway) involves the following analogy. A correct moral choice is like choosing the exact midpoint between two polar extremes—one being good, the other being bad. The bad extreme is analogous to the color black. The good extreme is analogous to the color white. (Naturally it's not necessarily as simple as that, but for the purposes of this argument, the image is relevant.) Thus, the occult object representing a liberal's moral decision-making in this context is the following image:

Another logical deduction from this image comes from psychology. Psychology tells us that the "grey area" between white and black is not easily identifiable, and that you cannot tell the difference between subtlely different shades of grey. Only when you hold up two different shades right next to one another can you easily tell the difference. Thus it follows, using our analogy, that the correct moral choice is never easily identifiable. Two possible courses of action can only be distinguished in hindsight, when we are able to see them side by side. Because of this, the correct moral choice for the psychiatrist is to distinguish what is obviously wrong (euthanizing all the mentally ill), what is obviously ideal (completely curing them of all undesirable behaviors), and proceeding to make an ad hoc choice of some grey area in the middle (scrambling their brains with a scalpel).

The conservative position derives from different ideas, originating in Christianity. To a conservative, the soul is the final authority. You must always stand for what is right, and what is right is distinct from what is wrong. There is no grey area between polar extremes: there is simply what is right, which involves the sanctity of the human soul and the responsibility for self-care which goes along with it, and what is wrong (pretty much everything else).

In this case, the conservatives essentially get it right. Right and wrong is not a middle way between two polar extremes. Rather, it is a positive choice arising from even-handed deliberation and impartial consideration of all options. If you can identify a polar extreme, naturally, both extremes are almost certainly wrong. However, it does not follow that the "grey area" in the middle is necessarily right. The correct choice is a positive and clear choice, which usually indeed happens to reside somewhere "in the middle," but only for the somewhat dubious reason that both extremes are wrong. The occult artifact cited above probably derives from the heady over-obsession the ancient Greeks had with mathematics, and the ape-like biological instinct to avoid dark places. It does not in any way derive from honest investigation, meditation, or deliberation. It's simply an image we've carried down through generations, but which doesn't really reflect the truth.

Now not all moral failures stem from occult sources. Also, not all occult objects originate moral failures. Moral mistakes are simply what they are: mistaking one thing for another. People often mistake women for sex objects. But it does not follow from this that either women or sex objects are occult objects. (Though sometimes, they are.) However, it is possible for occult sources such as the above to account for many moral failures. For instance, it also accounts for the moral failure of sacrificing freedom for security. Or, choosing a presidential candidate based on "electability." It also accounts for the moral failure of heedlessly donating a percentage of money to established charities, like the Susan G. Komen foundation and others (a phenomenon derisively called, I think, "serial activism"), rather than taking responsibility for your own community and making a positive contribution through individual authenticity. Again, not all occult objects cause damage. (Obama's logo, and campaign slogans, for instance, have done a lot of good.) But this particular one does in fact cause damage.

I think we can clearly conclude, then, that we should all take at least a modest casual interest in the occult, as defined above. We should become acquainted with or create powerful objects, and examine why they have the impact they do on our minds. Naturally, it isn't always important to everybody. Some of it can actually be rather psychologically dangerous. However, certain moral failings in our culture will never be uncovered until a good number of people seriously examine the occult, and a great number have at least a modest casual understanding. It isn't enough to simply look at occult objects, either. We have to understand how the occult works, why it works, and where the potentialities for moral failure lie. Naturally, through serious investigation, it is also possible to uncover the potentiality for positive and wholesome good. Again, not all decisions directly involve the occult. Some moral decisions, in fact, require purposefully ignoring the occult. But the fact that sometimes morality does involve the occult implies that, though it seems to be an area which our culture has (for understandable reasons) somewhat neglected, it is an important aspect of a good education.

A Modest and Measured Defense of Freemasonry

Now it is possible, according to certain logical arguments involving ethical uncertainty (i.e. "you don't know what you're getting into" arguments), to argue that joining a secret society (for everyone) is an unethical act. I actually have a fairly specific and well-founded argument for this. However, that's not the purpose of this post.

Interestingly enough, this post is actually in defense of Freemasonry (and therefore, by extension, the choice to join the Freemasons). My motivations for this I'll save for later. More important, right now, is the argument. Freemasonry, I'm fairly certain, is among the class of things of which it is capable of being objective. (Despite their secrets.) And I think, despite the fact that I'm not a Freemason, in this socio-political climate it's a good idea to make a measured defense of Freemasonry. Or, at least, to ward off a couple of specific attacks leveled against it.

There are all sorts of attacks against Freemasonry which propose a lot of hogwash. For instance, that they're trying (or have succeeded) in enslaving humanity. The less disturbing form of this argument is that they are actively involved in conspiratorial acts. However, there is no evidence of this whatsoever. No one has ever, to my knowledge, produced a single bit of evidence that they were trying to overthrow or control the government, with the exception, of course, of the American revolution itself. However, it's quite a stretch to call this a conspiracy. It's more along the lines of nation building. And it's a little hypocritical for the people who level this argument, as they often do, to go on and defend the constitution, Democracy, and even ordinary workings of the United States Government in its natural (noncorrupted) state.

The more disturbing form of this argument is what I would call a conspiracy theory. (As opposed to what I stated above, which is not a theory, but a hypothesis.) A theory is defined as an understanding of the workings of a studied thing based on empirically observed principles which lead to predictable results. A conspiracy theory, as I understand it, is a specific sort of theory involving the workings of a studied thing (generally the United States or even the world or universe itself) which postulates a conspiracy as one of the central principles governing its predicted behavior. Thus we get the schizophrenic ramblings of deluded people who say things like, "The Illuminati are the darkest of the dark forces of nature, a demon who has been around since the beginning of time, physically incarnated here on Earth, for the purpose of controlling the light of wisdom and keeping everybody in the dark." This is subtlely different than a conspiracy hypothesis. Hypotheses generally have a beginning, a middle, and an end. That's what makes them testable. Principles, on the other hand, which are constituent to theories, are generally not really testable. That's why we say that theories are statistically reliable, as opposed to fundamentally true.

Conspiracy theories are disturbing because it is impossible to postulate a change in a theory. Theories may be true or false, but they pretty much don't change. The only way in which they change is by being elaborated upon, or built upon. Therefore, if you really believe in conspiracy theory, as a theory (and not merely a tentative hypothesis), that implies that the situation you're proposing is fundamentally unchangeable. Which further implies that any fight against evil is ultimately futile. Now perhaps this belief is the result of racial trauma from when the Anglo Saxons had a pagan belief system in which evil ultimately triumphed over good, so perhaps it's understandable. But it certainly isn't true. And anyway, blaming a particular group for being a constituent of this kind of a theory is totally ridiculous, and honestly, it says more about you then it does about them.

Now it may be reasonable to say, "Nathan, let's look at the evidence." Okay, fair enough. I've given the statement of negative evidence, that there is no evidence to suggest that Freemasonry as an institution is reprehensible, which in our legal system anyway, is enough to exonerate the accused. Nevertheless, it might be good to examine the positive evidence, since I have to a small degree, informally, studied The Craft. What exactly is Freemasonry? From what I understand, it is a moral philosophy based on a certain set of principles. Central to Freemasonry is the allegory of Hiram Abiff, who was according to legend the chief architect of the Temple of Solomon. He was murdered, the legend goes, by three workers who wanted access to secrets so they could gain a higher status. However, they repented, and prayed for death, at which point they were killed by King Solomon. Apparently this is central to the initiation rites or rituals of Craft Freemasons. It is said by Masonic scholars that this story is constituent of an understanding of the universe: that we are all separated from God, and that the ultimate divine knowledge has been cut off from us, but that we may yet have some chance of obtaining divine light through the use of our intellectual capacities as human beings. Frankly these ideas don't contradict anything in any Abrahamic religion, so they should come as no surprise. The story may be similar in some respects to a conspiracy theory, in that it postulates that the workings of the universe involve a conspiracy. But subtle distinctions are important. If you recall, a conspiracy theory involves a conspiracy as an active constituent of the universe: it is a conspiracy which has been present since the beginning of time and is yet continuing. This story, however, involves a conspiracy which has already been completed. It isn't the conspiracy which is constituent of the workings of the universe, but the effects of the conspiracy. In my opinion, as an archetype, it reflects the belief that our sufferings are the result of previous conspiracies which we are working to repair. The fact that it happened may be permanent, but the karmic results of the conspiracy nevertheless are not, as implied by the "glimmering light in the East" (the fourth section of the Temple of Solomon which was not guarded by one of the murderers of Hiram Abiff). As an archetype, it is merely the acknowledgement that conspiracies exist; that suffering exists; that self-condemnation exists. It goes no further than that. Unless, of course, I am mistaken. And in any case, such a story and understanding of the universe in no way implies any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Masons. If a Freemason, perchance, were to engage in a conspiracy, it is probable that they would be considered as equal to the party who killed Abiff, and worthy of contempt.

So much for Craft Masonry. One might say that while, perhaps, the Craft Masons are not part of "the conspiracy," they are in fact low ranking Masons, and that if we really want to get the culprits, we should look at the Templars. But, again, there is no evidence that the Templars are conspirators. Unfortunately, I know very little about the content of the rituals of this group but for one piece of historical evidence. If memory serves me right, Aleister Crowley had a run-in with the Templars when he was forming his secret society, the Ordo Templi Orientis (the Thelemites). Some of the initiation rites he composed apparently infringed on the intellectual property of the Scottish Rite (Templars), as it was too similar to one of their own. After some correspondence, Crowley rewrote most of the rituals. Since Crowley was principally interested in the occult, this leads me to suspect that whatever the Templars profess, it has something to do with the occult. (Otherwise, why would Crowley even approach the subject?) However, this is hardly conclusive, and not very important anyway.

The real evidence I'd like to consider is the historical / circumstantial evidence. The Knights Templar was formed by the Poor Knights of Solomon, who were a militant group of Catholics who participated in the Crusades. From what I hear, they were ordered to travel all over the place in the Holy Land. Some have postulated that this is because they were searching for the holy grail, or some other magical object. Whatever the case, they made the decision to flee from the Holy Land, declare themselves Freemasons (who were at that time a challenge to the power of the Catholic Church), and establish themselves in Scotland. Now it could be that they actually found the holy grail, and that their intent was an occult, magical dominance of this Planet Terra. But I find it far more likely that the sight of Jerusalem drenched in blood so deep you had to wade through it really hit home, and they had some kind of realization of the futility of the Crusades, or perhaps of war in general, and decided to form a loyal opposition to the Catholic Church.

And even if they were involved in the occult, it is certain that the Catholic Church was also involved in the occult. The difference is that while the Catholic Church has always been involved in occult domination of a purely intellectual nature, the fact that the Scottish Rite declared themselves Freemasons (stoneworkers), and the general understanding of particularly British philosophies involving empiricism and rationality over subjective intellectualism, it is quite probable to my way of thinking that the occult commitments of the Scottish Rites involve a declaration of defense for Mother Earth. With the Catholic Church ordering people to perform insanely expensive occultist acts (such as moving gigantic Egyptian obelisks around), the same sort of superstitious nonsense which led to the extinction of the people of Easter Island, I could see, even at the time of the Crusades, a basic understanding that this sort of behavior, or even at least some aspects of the philosophy behind it, is simply unsustainable.

So now, let's sum up. We have, in our midst, people who believe in a conspiracy hypothesis but have no evidence, demanding justice for crimes while having a lower standard of evidence than the criminal justice system they so vocally oppose. Either that, or they believe in a deep conspiracy, which somehow involves Freemasonry, and yet, from what I've described, any evidence for what Freemasonry actually is declares that such a theory is unacceptable. Which means that not only are these theories in no way about Freemasonry, but they also do not even reflect any evils which are fundamental to Freemasonry (at least, according to the evidence). As stated, Craft Masonry does in fact involve conspiracy in a deep way. But, ironically, anyone who adopts a conspiracy theory is expressing their own belief in the part of Masonic morality which is fundamentally reprehensible. Which implies that the conspiracy theorists are themselves THE Masonic conspiracy. This is why it's so important, I think, to make the right distinctions, even the subtle ones, as often as you are able. Otherwise, frankly, whatever the problem is, your ideas are not the solution.

As for my motivation: it's really quite simple. I have Freemasons in my family, as well as occultists. And I support the Occupy movement, as well as Tibetan Buddhism. I also (I think) have at least some understanding of Freemasonry—at least the general ideas. I therefore get a little perturbed when I see anti-Masonic sentiment within those movements and spiritual philosophies (i.e. Occupy, anti-psychiatry, and Tibetan Buddhism) I support. I am not a Freemason myself, so I honestly see no pressing need to defend Freemasonry (other than in a modest defense of my family). More pressing, however, is the need to defend the social movements I believe in from idiocy. Particularly, I'd like to avoid the people wherever they may be who claim to defend Mother Earth but do nothing to defend the people who may actually defend Mother Earth, who believe in doing occult magic but hate the people who probably do magic (and the ones who certainly do magic), and who profess a belief in a Supreme Being but reject every single philosophy and religion in the history of mankind who actually professes a monotheistic belief. I find this kind of mindset a little annoying.

Why Enemies are Blessings: Re. Morgan Freeman and Lanza

I'm glad Morgan Freeman wrote the response he did for the shootings in Connecticut. Because I completely disagree. And, actually, my disagreement has solidified my resolve to a) not kill every fucking body I see, and b) not kill myself. (Death, by the way, is not an "opposite to life." Another post for another day, perhaps.) The argument went a little like this:

Freeman: http://www.dailypaul.com/266479/surprising-message-from-morgan-freeman-he-blames-the-media-for-ct-shooting

Me: You're full of shit.

Freeman: Yeah? Why's that?

Me: Because you're spouting the same sort of crap that every cynical psychiatrist does. You want more "mental health research," and like any "mental health researcher," you're looking for the essential quality that makes people essentially and fundamentally bad people from the very start, so you can kill it, quarantine it, sedate it, and obliterate it from the human race.

And to top it all off, you're saying the essentialist quality has to do with desire for fame. FAME! Which shows that you, like most other Hollywood celebrities (I wanted to say "hacks" but that's going too far—in this case, anyway, there's actually evidence against that claim), you believe that:

1. Everyone wants exactly what you have.
2. While it was divinely ordained for you to have it, it was not divinely ordained for 99.9999% of the world's population to have it.
3. All the problems of the world would be solved if everyone just gave up on their dreams and stopped wanting what you have, and instead, adopt a submissive position and accept the crumbs that people like you allow to drop off the table.

Freeman: Well, I read your position, because like every Hollywood celebrity in the world I keep up with the writings of Nathan Foster. It seems like you claim here that you understand the inner workings of school shooters. You say, and I quote, "I have these kinds of thoughts running through my head at least 20 times a day...."

You go on to claim the following: "[W]hether or not the objective world is an evil place where everyone deserves to die will be entirely beside the point. It is quite possible, theoretically, that everyone in the entire universe will rise up as your personal enemy." Taken in conjunction with the post about "Absolute Eclectic Morality," It would seem that you, sir, not only understand the shooter, but empathize with him, and perhaps even agree with him. There is actual evidence, in these three posts, that you believe everyone deserves to die.

So what's stopping you? If you think you deserve fame, and you know killing a bunch of people will get you fame, and you don't think that it is necessarily ethically wrong to kill a bunch of people, why don't you do it then, and gain as much fame as you could ever hope for?

Now this thought is what really crystalized my position, and it illustrates the value of enemies. (Not that Morgan Freeman is a mortal enemy of mine, but he does have a point of view which I completely disagree with, and in this case, that is enough.) The rest of the conversation:

Me: For one, if everybody didn't deserve to die, they probably wouldn't all eventually die. And for another, while I may, from time to time, hold the belief that everyone deserves to die RIGHT NOW, unless I actually have the ability to kill every single person in the world—not just a handful of people in this or that place, but literally everyone—I'm really just tooting my own horn. Everyone is going to die anyway. Why do I need to speed up the process?

And besides that obvious negative point of view, there's a positive reason not to kill everyone as well. There is a possibility that they have something to teach me. See, I'm a firm believer that situations of ignorance are ripe situations for new and meaningful knowledge. As it says in the Bible, "Many are called, but few are chosen." It's perfectly okay to be chosen, or not to be chosen, to be the one who kills everyone in the world. And while it's not certain that there's a reason why I'm not that person, there's a possibility that there is such a reason.

Which leaves me with two options. 1) I should've been chosen but wasn't. In which case, I have an opportunity to root out the real enemy and deal with that spirit. Or, 2) I should NOT have been chosen, and wasn't. In which case, I had something to learn, and it's better that I wasn't chosen.

Freeman: Great, so with your manic/depressive psychosis and acceptance of others, you're going to choose the other option, and off yourself in the basement?

Me: I'm glad you brought that up, because no, I'm not. I'm just like everyone else; I'm going to die eventually, and there's no reason to speed up the process. And there may be an opportunity to make a difference.

Freeman: You seem to be making the argument that living in this world is completely ephemeral. The only reason not to actually kill yourself, or anyone else, for that matter, is based on distant probabilities that perhaps they have benefit to the world. This is also evidenced by your insistance, in your response ("My Perspective on School Shootings"), that to end school shootings, we should train in discovering other-worldly goddesses, rather than human relationships here on Earth.

Me: I do NOT make the claim that life is ephemeral. I DO, however, make the claim that where you live your life is ephemeral, as long as you can make out goddess-Buddhas. If my body here on this Earth is killed, I'm fine with that, as long as I can find a place somewhere else where I can make out Buddhas. The choice is completely meaningless.

Freeman: If the choice is meaningless, why not try your luck with another body in another world, rather this one, which obviously causes you so much pain?

Me: Obviously, Morgan, you don't keep up with my writings as much as you claim, or you wouldn't have missed this post, in which I claimed that it is precisely the decisions which are meaningless—for example, Coke vs. Pepsi, Planet Earth vs. Planet Venus, human-form vs. goddess form, etc.—that are the most important. And not only did I make that claim, but I considered it such an important claim that I advanced the further claim that it is actually the basis for a just and creative society.

Hopefully you know, by now, that I mean exactly everything I say. And if we take the eclectic view of my philosophy, you'll understand that I am completely committed to a) NOT killing myself, and b) NOT killing others. This is a profound vow which, on many days, is like choosing to drink a specific cola-flavored drink. But many days there's actually a moral reason to follow it.

My Perspective on School Shootings

Approximately a year after my psychiatric hospitalization, and as a direct result of it, a number of thoughts I'd been having about the world culminated in a script for a short movie. It was about a school shooter. And it summed up the mindset of such a person in a simple argument, which I've not yet seen in circulation.

See, we tend to think that people commit school shootings because there aren't people "paying attention" to them. They lack the human interaction they need, and the human interaction they get is adverse to psychological health. So they attack a school or workplace in order to "get back" at the people who did them harm.

Now this view seems to make sense, but it leaves something important unexamined. It may explain the Columbine or Virginia Tech shooter, who shot their classmates. It may explain the shooter in Moscow Idaho, as well, since he probably believed that the government was the cause of all his problems, and therefore decided to shoot government employees.

But what about Adam Lanza?

Lanza shot a bunch of grade school children who had absolutely nothing to do with him. There was no reason whatsoever, according to the above-mentioned theories, for him to shoot these children. They were not his classmates. They were not his coworkers. And they did him no harm. This obviously points to this folk theory of school massacres as inadequate. In fact, the fact that the children did Lanza no harm is so obvious that, I bet, it factored in to his decision to shoot them. Which brings me to my own theory.

The thoughts I'd been having culminated in a simple, logical argument, which can be expressed formally. It goes like this:

1) Because of what I've experienced, the world is a very bad place. So bad, someone deserves to die for making it this way.

2) It's no one's fault in particular.

---

Conclusion: Everyone deserves to die.

Obviously no one has the power to kill everyone in the entire world. The next best option, then, is to kill as many people as possible.

Now this argument may have different flavors. It may take this form, for instance: "The world has been specifically designed to harm me." Or, "People in general exist for the sole purpose of harming me." Or any number of variants. But the key point is the same: existence in general is so awful, based on my own experience, that people who perpetuate this existence must be destroyed. Since it's no one's fault in particular, everyone must be destroyed.

Looking at it in this light, the meaning behind Lanza's apparently meaningless shooting becomes clear. Why unrelated children in an unrelated school? Because who it is does not matter. Everyone deserves to die, and the situation is so desperate that action must be taken right away. Therefore, Lanza decided to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Another point ought to be mentioned in regards to the question, "Why first-graders?" Well, first-graders are relatively undeveloped human beings. They have not yet had the chance to become the kind of people who contribute to the existence that people like Lanza have come to despise. Better to kill them, Lanza probably thought, before they become that way, and save them from contributing to that kind of treachery.

So what's the solution to this kind of problem? I can tell you with absolute certainty exactly what the solution is not. The solution is emphatically not psychiatric. Identifying and treating the "mentally ill" shooters before they shoot people will probably result in more shootings. Remember: I have these kinds of thoughts running through my head at least 20 times a day, and they did not start until after I submitted to psychiatric treatment. From my perspective, psychiatric treatment is almost entirely the cause rather than the solution to the school shooting phenomenon, insofar as psychiatry makes existence unbearable.

The solution is to make the world a better place. And I'm not talking, necessarily, about a one-piece-at-a-time strategy. For example, my strategy for doing this, partly, is to simply not exist in this world, and in that way make it better. For example, I've trained myself to see pictures, of goddesses or whatever, as living beings in and of themselves. Then I interact with these pictures, so I don't have to interact with the "real" world. Because the real world disproportionately causes me harm—harm for which no solution readily exists.

Psychology, today, is ill-equipped to deal with this problem. I always laughed when I talked with my therapist, because I would give him a long string of everything that had been going on, and how nothing had been going right, and the only thing he could say was, "Wow, that sounds pretty bad." Psychology has coping strategies for dealing with particular things which cause psychological problems. If the news is upsetting, limit access to the news. If a workplace setting is causing problems, take five minutes to visualize a better place. We have de-escalation techniques for dealing with problematic people. We encourage people to hang out with beneficial friends, rather than harmful ones.

But what happens when there are so many particular things, coming at you from all angles, and with such frequency, that it just seems like the world itself has set out to hurt you? What if you have no beneficial friends? What if it isn't the workplace that's causing you problems, but the entire world? At that point psychology has no answers, and in order to shut you up, refers you to a psychiatrist, who causes more problems. But why not apply these coping techniques to the world itself? Psychology will say that hanging out in seedy bars, for instance, will lead to having seedy friends, and therefore, you should not hang out in seedy bars. So if, living out your life, you have been completely unable to make more than maybe one or two friends who treat you right, why not stop hanging out in the world? Why not hang out with goddesses instead?

One might respond that we should make a commitment to live in the world rather than outside of it, in order to make the world a better place. Yes, of course this is true, but I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to be able to handle everything the world throws at them all the time. If the world consistently throws us more than we can handle, we may need a temporary alternative.

But that alternative doesn't come from nowhere. Remember, even our pictures of goddesses are anthropomorphic: they're inspired by things in the world. It is quite likely, in fact probable, that our goddesses will behave similarly to people in the world, if we haven't trained our minds. And then, of course, there is no possible escape.

That is why it is of vital importance for people to come up with a wholesome, inspired, concrete philosophy of ethics, or "the way the world should be." This philosophy should be crystalized and clear to the philosopher. It should be founded on a solid basis, such as meditative experience. That way, even if the objective world continues to do nothing but hurt you, goddesses will nevertheless be attracted to your ideas, and, if absolutely necessary, you won't need to live in the world at all. And if your ideas aren't adequate, so long as you're honest with yourself, the goddesses will let you know, and you can revise from there.

Thus if we train people to be honest with themselves, self-expressive, introspective, and fundamentally inquisitive, we will have cut out the basis of mass shootings. If we allow people to question objective reality, formulate self-expressive philosophies of living, and have real and direct intercourse with our fantasies (rather than intercourse mediated through objective reality), whether or not the objective world is an evil place where everyone deserves to die will be entirely beside the point. It is quite possible, theoretically, that everyone in the entire universe will rise up as your personal enemy. But it is impossible for there to be any space anywhere in existence where a goddess-Buddha does not reside, if we've been trained to see them. That is the solution to hateful killings in the world.

Absolute Eclectic Morality

The last post I made was written in a state of blissful psychosis. And yes, I do mean, literally, psychosis. If you didn't already know, I am an expert in that subject, for reasons which may well be biological.

And in that post I said some things which definitely rung of psychosis, like, essentially, the basis of all morality as being open to the idea of everyone killing everyone. Nevertheless, while the post may have been—quite enjoyably—formed in psychosis (the previous one to that having been formed in a state of depression), the ideas expressed were actually formed, and even named, earlier.

The concept I was expressing I have named "absolute eclectic morality." And the principle behind it is that the basis of morality is not dogma, not intuition, not biology, and not any conceptual framework, but in openness to frightening and painful things. But while some of these earlier posts may well serve as a great introduction, I have yet to explain, to my satisfaction anyway, the way in which an anarchic state of "absolute eclectic morality" culminates in a more orderly state of conventional morality.

Consider this analogy. A man has a positive goal. He wants to make a change in the world. He wants to start a political party. He may think, "What exactly should I do, in society, to put forth my political views?" In his natural thought process, the thought may occur that he should kill a bunch of people whom he disagrees with. Obviously, this is the most expedient way to form a political party. But will it really fulfill the intended goal? If you live in a society where such behavior is acceptable, the goal may well never be achieved, or even formed. How can we achieve anything with the constant threat of death biting at our heels? So this thought is discarded.

We can stop right there, because clearly, in a similar manner, any behavior which is immoral will eventually be discarded. But was the man an immoral man for such a monstrous thought to occur to him? Absolutely not. It was perfectly natural. The process of fulfilling a goal begins first with a state of formation. Okay, I have a goal, now how do I fulfill it? The word "how" here is loaded with possibilities, and in this initial stage, each possibility is an acceptable one. This initial state is what I call absolute eclectic morality, because morality here means that all possibilities are open, eclectically, and will only be adopted or discarded based on their relative merit. The process which follows, of course, weeds out the immoral acts, due to their low relative merit.

So far I've proceeded in a very Confucian way. I've analyzed morality in terms of a "goal variable" if you will. It's entirely external, because the internal state of accepting the goal as valid and moral is taken as a given. But obviously the morality of a goal cannot be taken as a given. There are some goals which are, in fact, immoral. We can't just assume a moral goal.

But while eclectic morality may seem external, it rather seeps inward with the following concept: eclectic morality in no way means that all actions are justified. It merely acknowledges an infinite array of justifiable actions which encompasses all finite ideas. It acknowledges the fact that, in an infinitesimally subtilely distinct set of two situations, not weeping when a person coughs may be unjustified, while slaughtering that person with a knife is completely justified. Even if the two actions are separated by a mere moment, or the smallest of details. Of course the converse is true too; slaughtering the person may be unjustified, while weeping at his coughing may not be. (And obviously this is more often the case.)

But what allows for the sacred distinction between good and evil? It is, in fact, a state of absolute eclectic morality. The morality of an act depends on the entire context of the act. And "entire context" here is implied in the term "eclectic." The formation of goals must therefore also be taken into account. When one internally forms a goal, the context of the goal-formation must be taken into account in an eclectic way. And when that goal is externalized, all the various external methods for achieving that goal must similarly be taken into account.

From either perspective, internal or external, it will function the same way. If you produce a goal, and you're not sure if it is the correct one, absolute eclecticism will demand that you consider the possibility that the goal itself needs to be altered. Not as a return to the original goal, but as a clarification of the greater goal of what it means to be human. And likewise, if your intentions are good, absolute eclecticism will demand that the execution also be good. This is the way my moral understanding functions. And I believe it functions in all situations, internal, external, or otherwise.

Clarifications of Buddhism: Nonviolence, not Anti-Violence!

One of the problems faced by American Buddhists today, I think, is that we are too peaceful. Many of the teachings of Buddha indicate a strong central value of peace. But to many, this kind of peace simply means inaction.

Instead of trying to be grossly peaceful, we should try to be subtilely peaceful. We should have a deep and meaningful sense of peace.

Consider the Dorje Shugden controversy in Tibetan Buddhism. Dorje Shugden is an enlightened, wrathful protector whose worship The Dalai Lama has outlawed. He outlawed this practice, according to Wikipedia, because he read a story about Dorje Shugden saw, wherein the deity saw a bunch of Gelugpa Buddhists studying Nyingmapa Buddhism, and so he slaughtered them, because Dorje Shugden is a Gelugpa Buddhist and wanted to maintain the purity of Gelugpa Buddhism.

I can definitely understand the pressing need for Tibetan Buddhism to be adopted by Westerners, and I can definitely see how Buddhism may not have been so easily introduced if His Holiness didn't adopt such a firm perspective. Far be it from me to criticize the Dalai Lama.

But honestly, what's so bad about slaughtering people? Slaughtering people is something human beings do, and we need to recognize this. We can't just take our human nature lightly. There's an important lesson in our violence.

In my opinion, if we're going to slaughter people, we should do so in a mutual hatred stemmed from mutual respect. As Sonny said in the classic Dog Day Afternoon: "The guy who kills me... I hope he does it because he hates my guts, not because it's his job." We shouldn't kill people dispassionately, leaving them confused about why they are victimized for no apparent reason, and leaving us with a spiritual crisis because we don't understand our actions or the meaning of our lives. If we kill people, it should be because we fucking hate them. And because they fucking hate us. Period. End of story.

The Maoris, whom I have studied a bit, built a well-developed warrior ethic based on this idea. They are warriors. They hate people, and they kill them. They also send them medics to lovingly heal them up and make them strong and ready to fight, not because they love them, but because they hate them and want to fucking kill them. In this deep hatred is a profound feeling of love. If a Maori wants to kill your fucking guts, you should take it as a compliment.

But if an American wants to kill you, unfortunately, it's probably because his boss wants a little higher of a profit margin. Understandably, as Americans, this leaves us a little disoriented. Should I identify as an American, despite this desperate cynicism, or should I adopt a wholly new culture? Being American is thus difficult for us. However, unfortunately, this difficulty in being American, due to people's natural tendency to overgeneralize and miss the point of things, results in an unwarranted extension of the idea of restraining violence into the territory of anti-violence, which disregards not only the cynical American approach to violence, but the wholesome Maori approach as well. In this way, the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

So if Dorje Shugden wants to slaughter people, so what? He's enlightened; he can do what he wants. We should be less concerned with whether or not slaughtering people is justified, and more concerned with opening up to the other, and being receptive when the other opens up to us. There are teachings we must learn from others. And we Buddhists have wholesome things to contribute. Being anti-violent is actually a kind of closed-mindedness.

If we decide to be nonviolent, that's great. But how does this apply to others? This is our moral choice. Not theirs. It is far more important to be open to the ideas of others. And here's a crucial point. When we are open to others, and their wishes, belief systems, and so forth, we will begin to see the actual basis for nonviolence, rather than our mere projected basis for it. We will begin to see the most appropriate way to express our inner wishes, and we will see that regardless of violent intent, on either side of a dispute, if we are truly open to each other, the most equitable and intelligent way to resolve the dispute will come to light. And this way will probably (though not certainly) have no violence. In other words, the resolution will certainly be non-violent, but not anti-violent.

Moral codes are not dogma. Moral codes are a system of restraint that we apply to develop a sense of higher importance. Dogma, on the other hand, is the belief that a certain moral value has an essential quality by the virtue of which it is completely infallible and must be followed in every circumstance without fail. I tend to think instead of nonviolence as a guiding moral principle, we Western Buddhists tend to adopt anti-violence as dogma.

Blueprint for a Just and Creative Society: Part 2

The two sides of the coin described in the previous article have to do with creativity and justice. I can summarize it like this: 1) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice doesn't matter, it is important to make a choice and stick with it. 2) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice is important, it's best not to choose between the institutions themselves, but rather choose the most ethical point of view, and the institution that happens to be most in accordance with that point of view. Choice 1 makes society creative, choice 2 makes it just.

I think it's also important here to touch on one particular choice in the second category that we must make as a society. The choice has to do with a kind of unity. When we make choices of the first category, it is important that we as a society do so in a context regarding sociocultural institutions, agreements, understandings, and so forth that we can trust. While it's important that personalities do not get all mashed up, we have to have some common ground which invites us to view other personalities, and for other personalities to view our own. This gives meaning to everyone, regardless of their choices. (I'm using the word "personalities" here instead of "people" in light of the statement that we form our identity, or our personality, according to the loyal choices we make that do not matter.)

In order for this to happen, we have to be able to trust one another. For there to be common ground, or a level playing field, we have to agree on certain codes of conduct, according to each person's differing ability to accept things. There are a number of these common grounds, like the fact that one dollar is worth the same everywhere in the U.S., the fact that arguments can't escalate to the point of lethal violence, or sexual violence, and so on. The most important of these, of course, is a legal system we can trust to institute our just demands.

But there's another aspect to this as well—an internal aspect. We can't simply rely upon external things like laws and financial institutions to ensure that all our interactions are positive. We also have to have an internal sense of trust for each other, and an internal sense of goodwill. We have to truly have warm-hearted, good feelings for one another. Love and compassion. Then we can get into fights without really fighting. And anyway, if we don't have these feelings, no number of laws can cover every contingency. We have to trust that we can trust each other.

Thus we should be able to have multiple different personalities, some of which radically opposed to one another, in all aspects except the ones which are important, in which case we should be in accord. And these personalities should interact, through the medium of social exchange which we can trust as an ethical baseline. We must all have a sense of trust for one another, as well-founded as it can be. If this isn't possible, neither is a just and creative society.

Why People Give Up on God

I will never give up on a good idea.

When humanity discovered the philosophical notion of God and monotheism, it was an intellectually superior idea. Monotheism is far more coherent and powerful than divine polytheism. The idea that there are multiple Gods who rule the universe, and who have distinctive personalities like Zeus, and can control us with their mind-powers, just doesn't make sense. Whereas, the idea that beneficial and spiritual things are faceless and nameless and full of love makes a lot of sense. Nevertheless, the question arises:

Is God a good idea?

When I was in Nelson, British Columbia on retreat, I was painting a wall. I saw a bug flying around, attracted to the wall because it was white. The wall wasn't dry yet, so I tried to whisk it away, but the bug was determined to land on that wall because it was so beautiful and white. It landed on the wall, and I had no choice but to kill it, because it got stuck in the paint.

The religious paint in Western society has not yet dried. While there are attractive things about religion, it sometimes does more psychic harm than good. I hope that when I talk about God, as I sometimes do, that I'm contributing to the positive work being done, and not causing people, including myself, to die stuck in the paint.

But look. At the end of the day, in America, God is a racist sexist old white guy in a flowey robe who lives in a cloud. So if you go around talking about God from a genuine, spiritual point of view, nobody's going to know what the hell you're talking about. And worse, they're going to think you're a jerk and avoid you. And not all of those people who avoid you are going to be bad people. So you have to ask yourself, do you really want to be avoided by good people and sought after by bad people? That's a very important question.

Why did I ever get on a religious kick in the first place? When I was young, I used to trash-talk God. And it harmed people. So one day I decided the only solution was to ask God for forgiveness. This and this were the results, and I'm proud of them. Nevertheless, to say you're a religious person carries so much baggage. Too much. What do I mean when I say I "want" to be religious? It means I don't want to be a psychiatrist. And that's ALL it means. Nothing more. I want to have delusions, because only delusions allow you to believe in things that aren't real yet. It doesn't mean I want to go to church, and it doesn't mean I want to preach nonsense I try to make myself believe.

And anyway, the first thing that comes to mind when you mention God is bullshit. Because it is bullshit. And hypocritical. People go around saying God is loving, teaches you faith, has no image, is divine, will lead you to heaven, and so on, but they always seem to conjure up the image of a hateful, superstition-inducing, commercially whored, frightening concept that causes everybody to suffer. Why should I go around wearing that as a badge of honor? I think it's telling that the most positive changes brought about in society today were made by anti-Christians, many of whom were probably pseudo-Satanists. I'm not joking. Look it up.

There's a reason why we have religion, but there's also a reason why people seem to hate it. There's a reason for everything. And it's not because people are sin-loving devil worshipers who've lost their soul. I think religious people sell their soul more often than atheists, with a few laudable exceptions. (Some of whom I'm proud to say are my friends.) But if you love God, please, don't be a jerk. By their fruits ye shall know them, and frankly, the fruits of religion smell pretty sour. Hopefully it's only because they're not ripe yet.

Debates on Brony Sex

Just got back from my trip to Ponyland in Equestria. A particularly American conceit is to assume that our actions here have no effect on other countries. I want to emphatically say that Equestria CARES about the American Brony scene. They pay attention, and it is wrong to assume they don't. And the debate over there is fascinating. I'll share with you a couple articles lifted from the Equestrian media about sexual objectification of ponies, particularly Fluttershy.

---

"Be Kind to Fluttershy: Don't Assume." By, Twilight Sparkle.

It is unfortunate that in today's culture a pony cannot escape sexualization. Of course, I'm no stranger to sexuality. In the 21st century, it's becoming increasingly obvious that none of us are. In fact, that's partially my point. Lets face the facts: ponies are becoming increasingly sexually liberated. Once modern medical science and the industrial revolution brought about the pony condom and the ability to cure some and detect most pony sexually transmitted diseases, Equestria responded my loosening the sexual mores of the past. It's unnecessary to elaborate. Suffice to say that Fluttershy's sexuality, like that of many ponies in Equestria, is probably multifaceted. And active.

Now one may argue that because a pony's sexuality is active, actively seeking attention from others, that he or she must necessarily invite sexual objectification to fulfill his or her desires. An incredulous Brony may say, "I have a right to respond to the sexual activity of ponies. If they cast sexual attention on others, am I not simply returning the favor?" Leaving aside the presumptuousness of assuming a pony wants to have sex with you, or any human for that matter, the difficulty in this statement lies in the distinction between open sexuality and forced projection of sexuality.

Sexuality should come with no expectations, no presumptions, no expectations. For Fluttershy to continue to be the confident woman pony she is, she must operate on a level plane of autonomy. Fluttershy must respond to the objective challenges she faces as they are, without laboring under other people's expectations and presumptions. She cannot live to please others: she must live to be herself. Although Fluttershy has a penchant for consideration of others, she consistently does not allow this consideration to degenerate into obsequious self-deprecation. It is one of her more notable talents. But unfortunately, the very virtue of consideration for others invites social pressures. It is unfair for us to add to them, especially in the emotionally potent arena of sexual activity.

It is okay for a human to be attracted to Fluttershy, or any other pony. Again, she is sexually active, and invites sexual attention. But, if you objectify her, and presume that she must fulfill sexual roles on demand, this violates her autonomy and increases unfair pressures, making it difficult to for her to fulfill her obligations as a citizen of Ponyville.

What's the alternative? Simply this: open Brony sexuality. Attraction without expectations. It may take some decolonization, but it should be achievable with practice. Don't make the mistake that I am anti-male, anti-Brony, or anti-pony sex. But as a society, we must lessen the pressures on Equestrian females. It is the only way for Equestrian civilization to grow and progress.

---

"Wake Up! Sex is Dialectic! A Response to Sparkle." By, Princess Luna

It is difficult for me, being in a position of authority, to write an opinion piece like this, for fear that it may come across as an edict. Let me begin by saying I share some sympathies with Twilight; I am well aware of the need for sexual liberation of woman ponies, as well as the need to fight off the Brony invasion any way we can. I find it undignified that humans from a different planet have the gall to steal away our young maidens for sexual intercourse. But this is all beside the point. The real reason I am writing this is to point out the blatant logical fallacies Sparkle uses to advance her case.

Sparkle's argument rests entirely on the distinction she draws between sexual objectification and sexual "openness." I find that no such distinction exists. Any sort of "level plane" one tries to imagine falls apart upon close inspection. Why? Because openness, to her, essentially means lack of initiative. If one pony does not advance him- or herself upon another, no sexual interaction can take place. "Advancing" is essentially a verb: it is "verbial," if you will. And what does a verb require? An object. A sexual object in this case.

Sex is dialectic. It requires give-and-take. One pony or person advances upon another, and then the other responds, and the first responds to the response, and so on. The kind of vision Sparkle advances, while well-studied, is naïve. It sees sex as a kind of static thing, which somehow miraculously arises from a state of non-relativity, which means non-motion. No action can take place in such a state.

While I do not respect the Bronies and their motives, I do at least understand their nature, which is not much different from our own. When a Brony expresses sexual desire for a pony, he is by necessity objectifying her, and it is not this which I object to. This is natural. And while a Brony should not be allowed to interfere with our Equestrian national self-determination, he should at least be given the same essential rights we respect in Equestria. One of these rights is freedom of speech. If a Brony wants to objectify Fluttershy based on her obsequiousness, which is a weakness of her character, it is not for us to decide whether he can express this. And the fact of this expression alone is not reprehensible. It is not as if by sexually objectifying Fluttershy a Brony is spreading some kind of malicious lie or destructive cultural meme. Again, objectification is natural and necessary. If Fluttershy does not like to be objectified in the way she is, she should work on her character. But she and her friends should not attack Bronies' freedom of speech. Rather, attack the cultural co-optation and colonialism they advance on us; this is the real issue between our species.

I believe Fluttershy is right that she has a right to sexual liberty. But this does not require freedom from objectification. When somepony makes the free choice to objectify her, she has the free choice to respond or not. If the first pony or person forces the choice, and violates her liberty, then we have a problem. But otherwise, she has no right to try to force the first person or pony's thoughts and beliefs. Even if they are a Brony.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Hacking vs. Lying

In my opinion, this is the most interesting of the series because it involves a brief philosophical treatment of a very new concept. I am going to use the "programmer subculture" definition of "hacker," which is someone who manipulates computers in ways they weren't meant to be. I will distinguish this from "cracking," which is simply unlawful access to a computer.

Hacking is not cracking. Nevertheless, I feel there must be a little leeway given against the law in use of the term. If you do something online that's only a minor transgression of the law, but nevertheless have ethically praiseworthy or at least neutral motives, then I believe you are still "hacking."

How does this relate to lying? Well, it raises certain ethical issues. Hacking is essentially "gaming the system." It is a blatant misrepresentation of your motives. And we needn't be talking about computers here. We can talk about things like political maneuvering done in congress, or journalist misrepresentation in search of a story. The fact of the matter is, however, that it usually involves computers. And this is what makes hacking ethically neutral, as opposed to lying, misrepresentation, or "gaming the system" per se, which are all unethical.

So what's the difference? Hacking is done openly. Example: you're calling a company with an automated menu on the phone. You know you will have to misrepresent yourself in order to talk to a human. You're not cracking, because your motives are ethically sound—maybe you want to know the washing instructions for your kid's new sweater. If you were straight up misrepresenting and not hacking, you wouldn't ever want to tell anyone what you did. But that's not the case. You were hacking, because if someone asks what you did, you can tell them; it's not a big deal. If there are restrictions to who gets to know what you did and why, it's only because those people are the people you're hacking. It's not because you need to keep a secret from the general public.

Hacking is a product of the Age of Aquarius. It is an "open" act in my use of the term. (See my Principles of Openness for an explanation of my use of the term.) And furthermore, I believe that my outline of the notion of hacking is sufficiently concrete to be protected speech under the Constitution of the United States, as it should be.

Conventionally Ultimate

Edit: This experience has actually happened to me. Every two weeks, on the dot, I experienced extremely ultimate physical pain while I slept, beginning at my incarceration in the mental hospital, and lasting several months. Eventually it faded, but there is no possible way in human existence to experience more physical pain. It was as though every nerve ending of my body which had the capability of feeling pain was fed overwhelming supplies of the molecule responsible for pain. The dreams only reemerged once, recently. In the recent case, I was on a reality television show, and the pain was accompanied by the words "Medication Alert" on the screen. I felt the pain coming on, and the usual hopeless inevitability, but this time, I was saved by the unexpected presence of a Dharma teaching. Please be human. Please oppose psychiatry.

Question: Is there such a thing as ultimate pain?

Answer: Yes, I think so — in a sense. Pain is a concept like everything else, and thus can exist in pure form in an entropic environment.

Question: What about in another universal formation that allows for more of similar elements?

Answer: Yes, that too would be ultimate. They're both ultimate in relation to their constructs.

Student: It's like for one man something is ultimate, while for another man something else is ultimate.

Answer(er): Yes, sort of. Except, concepts only make sense in regards to their universal formations, so the idea of "ultimate" is really the same in both cases — there is no hierarchy.