I posted on Facebook the other day a passive aggressive cloak and dagger very conflicted response to a person who is so ill in their prejudices that it would probably bother them none if they knew that they were being admonished. I can’t go much further with why I did not directly address them. Suffice it to say it would affect more than just me and this particular person.
So, here’s my altruism posted to Facebook:
“True strength is not displayed by repetition of ignorant blind faith. Rather, true strength is engendered by an ethical and moral impetus. Such impetus carries its own ‘will’ or ‘direction’. Furthermore, this moral impetus with directed will ( with a moral compass ) not only finalizes its motion at its terminal point or target” but expresses an eternal continuum of goodness as the essence of this moral impetus”.
Then, as was expected, a ‘participation reaction statement’ came not too long after.
This was not the person that I was directing the statement at, by the way.
Nonetheless, they said to me:
“Prosperity can come with perseverance of a plan”
(Admittedly, I got cocky and asked about their ‘alliteration’ skills)
So, let’s define what I had really said:
I was making a definitive statement or ‘maxim’ that one could ascertain ‘postulates’ from:
From my maxim: *True strength is not displayed by repetition of ignorant blind faith but engendered by an ethical and moral impetus* I entwined the following postulates:
Postulate 1) I implied that “strength” comes from ‘that which is good’.
Postulate 2) I implied that ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ engender the impetus by which ‘strength’ is active, mobile, viable and empowered.
Postulate 3) By implication, I delineated ‘blind faith’ from morals and ethics (the ‘handling’ of morals).
Postulate 4) I implied that sustainability was found in morals
Postulate 5) I implied that by eliminating morals and ethics we could therefore act on ‘blind faith’ because there is no substance upon which to act with and such a ‘freedom’ from morality now allows us to act on blind faith ( In other words, “blind faith” and the activity developed from it, is immoral. This puts the western church into a conundrum).
Postulate 6) I implied by eliminating morals and ethics that ‘strength’ is illusory and not sustainable and the ‘resolve’ would be ‘blind faith’ or ‘fantastic thinking’ – a.k.a. ‘Fantasy’ or ‘Phantasmagoria’-i.e., bizarre or fantastic combinations, collections or assemblages of ideas, icons, images that are in shifting patterns—-much like the mosaic church windows which actually depict the problem I’m referring to.
Postulate 7) I implied that a ‘strength’ based on illusory blind faith IS AN exercise of the subjective nature without ontological reference. That is, the will of the id or ‘the set of instinctual desires’- when acted out through a ‘mosaic mind’, concludes to delusion and eventual failure of direction, purpose, plan and failure to continue the ‘will’ of TRUTH, not the WILL of limited-myopic self.
After making my “simple” Maxim—-this person said that I was countering him. This person said: “All I was doing was supporting your statement but you keep challenging and dismiss me on this post”.
It’s funny how ‘statements’, when pregnant with meaning (supported by many entwinements, in this case), can “offend” those who have a different, let’s say, world view.
Then, I said to this person: “I’m definitely not trying to challenge or dismiss you.
Then, I said, “The differences that can be ascertained in our statements are as follows: Hitler had an idea of prosperity with a plan. He certainly persevered for a time. Hitler’s perseverance was only sustainable for a short time due to a lack of civil morals. Though Hitler had a ‘code of conduct (one could say a ‘type of morals’) it certainly wasn’t a code of conduct that was in continuity with the rest of the human race.
You see, what I’m saying is: Hitler did not act on ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ befitting the human race. His ‘strength’, by his own life’s definition, failed him because world domination by means of ethnic cleansing and creating the ‘pure’ race was not sustainable. Therefore, that ‘type’ of strength failed him. It’s math, it’s inevitable.
This person continued to act as if I were talking to him; nearly comically to me, not them. That is, something was touching at their soul.
Then, *the catch*. I asked them to stop responding/ reacting. I told them that they were ‘reacting’ to an idea held in their own mind. I told them that apples to oranges is what you’re comparing. Mine is an ethical one…yours is a format to accomplish. I said, in and of itself, yours is not nefarious, but, given into the wrong hands, it is. Mine is governed by itself: goodness, —-ethics and morals are caused by this goodness which gives impetus to the strength and directs the strength with it’s eternal sustainability. Such a sustainability is eternal but can and does perform in our tempo or temporal clause. That is to say, eternal goodness acts upon us until our time is done with this or that. This person STILL continued to ‘challenge’ me because they didn’t understand that their feeling of getting burned was not by me. I said, “warning, don’t continue this conversation—-it’s wasn’t directed at you initially, but, it is becoming by itself more directed at you until one of us, or both, or neither, is filtered with its reason. Finally, I asked: “Are you the one who says, ‘any good n….. is a dead n….. and any good democrat is a dead democrat?! Because if YOU ARE I am totally disgusted with you and a social, moral, spiritual judgement will set itself upon you!!’ Are YOU that person or not!??” They said, “absolutely not”. I said, “thank you, have a great day”. Didn’t hear from them after.
I want to show the ‘mechanism of failure’ is not necessarily in the ‘sack’, ‘Saeculum’, or ‘secular’ sense. That is, both “christian” and “non-christian” *conundrums* are not necessarily on equal playing grounds when one of the two (or both) are acting with fraudulent representation.
“Blind Faith”, as defined by the modern ‘church’, doesn’t necessarily use the word “blind” to connote their ‘belief’ but they most certainly do ‘believe’ in ‘blindness’ as ‘ignorance to something’ and make it the only moral way by which they should operate their “true faith”. Somehow, this has become a laudable ‘ethic’ in ‘the church at large’. This is also an example of falsely moralizing a term.
The ancient Greek (immoral or amoral) used the term “aletheia (alle’ to wander/ theia {with} the goddess)” as a valid term for “Truth”—whether they practiced it or not. Therefore, to the pagan Greek, they knew what Truth meant. It meant to trust in the goddess and act by her lead. Interestingly, it is a ‘blind term’ to act upon….that is, “to be blind to your will and follow the WILL of the goddess as She guides you through the Forest”.
Such is one of the conundrums distilled here: the ‘christian’ *believes* that willing to act by willful blindness is a pass to not know, to be lazy, to not exegete, to not parse and apply, ….hence, immoral christian agnosticism. I have known many agnostics who are not lazy, do believe in Christ, but admit what they DON’T know. Many agnostics, i think, are more ‘moral’ than the ‘christian’ who makes their ‘belief’ *agnoia*.
Many of the ‘churches’ have created a fantasy of agnoia or ‘agnosticism’ that is immoral, by their terms that they fail to see. There is an apocalyptic ‘christianity’ that is alive now that neither exists in the sack of humanity or the well thought out discourses of the early church fathers. There is a failure to exegete to know where they come from, yet, claim the ‘appellate’, “Christian”. The modern apocalyptic immoral agnostic christian neither matches in morals or substance of existence the language which conveyed apogee truths found in the realm of pagan Epic dramas, Pagan poems and Greek philosophies which so used the etymologies of Homeric myths’ vocabulary. Neither does this ‘modern Christian’ regard the Reason by which the martyrs of the Apostolic-First Century Christianity lived and died by.
Therefore, the illogical is not moral. Rather, the illogical is always deviously created in a vacuum to operate in shadows for its own desires. It would take great effort to ‘deviate’ from that which has naturally flowed by it’s own poetry since the dawn of consciousness.
