Syracuse: Marcellus on the Web
^{Copyright © 2007-2008 Cassius Marcellus Zedaker}

Gospel Truth; or, Why I am not a Christian

Gospel Truth

or,
Why I am not a Christian

^{Dedicated to Those who Wondered}

The Gospel's Truth is plain to see,
And has been known quite anciently.
But one man's mind is not another's
And this will set a brother against a brother.

In choosing we are always free
To select from what we know and see;
But knowledge, Truth, is not in what one makes it:
The truth of Truth is just in how one takes it.

From Truth springs truth, as from one, many.
That Truth from One, is it in any
Of those truths which from it come?
And, must I add another one?

The way of Truth is that of Mind,
And in its wayward travels finds,
Diversion, blockage, and debris —
Prejudice, insanity —

When truth from one mind makes escape,
By mouth or pen, it's changed its shape.
With bump and scrape it takes its leave,
And finds you with a jump — Ho, heave!

Then like Illion with great King Priam, leige,
The truths have The Truth under seige;
Massed as Masses, Doctrines, Creeds —
These are truths in swarms, like bees.

Too, Gospel Truth is One and Ever,
But it's not "only"! Or consider, then:
If Truth is all mens, it could never
Flow from one man, only's, pen.

Ancient Chinese Secrets

I just added a new section to the links here at Syracuse. Specifically, I added a section on Eastern Classics, and in particular Taoist classics, as of all the Eastern schools, Taoism is the most strongly appealing: a philosophy rather like Zen Buddhism, without the Buddhism (which is the way I like my Zen.)

By the way, I finally did get my financial aid. I was stylin' there for a minute…

Well. A Deep Subject.

So, now that I'm fucked out of my financial aid for school for another seven days (at least...), I am turning my mind to more practical matters, ones that I can do something about. That is to say, things that I can do in the web-based RPGs that I like to play.

Things to do in MechQuest:

• Complete Icthyosaur Skeleton in Soluna City Museum
• Complete Knife-and-Spork Challenge in Soluna City
• Complete 100-Level Elevator Ride to the Appointment on the space station surrounding Westion.
• Complete salvage quest on Zargon.

Stuff to do in DragonFable:

• Complete alchemy training quests

Stuff to do in AdventureQuest:

• Spike INT stat by training, so that I can succeed in the Paladin class quests
• Train Paladin class-armor to level 5

Stuff to do in Dragon Tavern:

• Click the button.

A Philosophical Letter to my Uncle

First: If analytic judgements a priori, such as number-analysis and argument from definition, tell us nothing more than is contained in the concept we are analyzing and, as such, are scientifically certain, and also are not metaphysical: and if Aristotle's ethics tell us no more than is contained in the concept of "too" (as in, "too much", "too little"), then Kant is obliged to admit that Aristotle's ethics are not metaphysical, and are the most scientific yet proposed by any philosopher. (This was proposed by Mortimer J. Adler in 10 Philosophical Mistakes, but I only last night understood what he meant.)

Second: The end of Hegel's Philosophy of Right? "Deutchland über alles!" as the synthesis of Greece and Rome, Germany transcendant (according to the dialectic) of both. It took more than an hour of squinting at two paragraphs of his to figure that out, and I'm still not entirely certain I get it. Who the ?!@* writes like ?!@* Hegel???

Third: Faust. For all the influence it seems to have had on German intellectual development, very few Germans actually seem to have grokked it — Hegel, in fact, paraphrases the Faust in the Preface to The Philosophy of Right, and does so in a way that is almost directly antithetical to the main meaning of the play.

He paraphrases Mephisto as saying something like, "Whoever rejects rationality will go to the devil and to perdition". Well. Faust rejects rationality as vacuous, yes, and goes to the Devil, yes, but he is redeemed in the end, and it is not rationality that redeems him. Job, of course, rejecting not one tithe of his (presumably learned) Jewish faith, also goes to the Devil and (also!) is redeemed in the end.

In other words, the use of the Faust by later German thinkers is rarely in line with the main point of the story as Goethe seems to have intended it (Freud comes closest), just as Greek and Roman moralizers upon Homer almost never seem to have grasped the point of the story of Achilles, but use bits and pieces of Homer's glory to tinsel their trees, and interpret him slicing and dicing, leading to conclusions that could never have crossed Homer's mind. Only Plato seems to have genuine insight into Homer on that score (in Book III of Republic), but insofar as he does he is not an appreciator but a critic.

Verily! So much for all that.

On Mephistopheles and Faust

To call the Faust of Goethe a "morality play" is not quite untrue; but it is misleading. In a "morality play" proper — such as the original chap-book versions of the Faust story — the moral of the story is the most important thing, and is always explicit. Otheriwse said, the tale and characters being what they may, the moral is presented bright and clear. For instance, the morality of the original Faust story is simple: if you make a deal with the Devil, then you will go to Hell. So don't do that.

Goethe's version, however, is much more subtle; like a Bach puzzle-canon, it is presented as a problem to be worked out, not as a problem solved. The moral dilemma is simple: who is to blame for the mayhem that Faust causes Gretchen — Faust, or Mephistopheles? Gretchen herself is shown to be completely blameless — had she never met Faust, she probably would have been sanctified.

Faust. Hear, you must get that girl for me!
Mephistopheles. Well, which one, then?
Faust. She just went by.
Mephistopheles. 
That one? She was just coming from her priest,
Absolved from every sin, down to the least.
Hard by the chair I stole quite nigh.
She's innocent in deed and thought
And went to confession all for naught.
Over her I have no power.

Therefore, the blame can either be laid on Faust, or on Mephistopheles.

We see, first, that Faust has never in his head or heart an evil intention (it is impossible that Goethe could have considered the simple desire, on Faust's part, for Gretchen, "evil"); it is always the means, provided by Mephistopheles, that cause havoc. (Remember, too, that according to Aristotle, choice is a function of means, never of ends; and, that all ends ultimately aim at Happiness, and so are good). It is Mephisto who brews the "sleeping potion" that kills Gretchen's mother; it is Mephisto who drives home the sword that kills Valentine, her brother. Therefore, we are justified in considering Mephistopheles a perfect devil, perfectly black, perfectly evil.

In painting Mephistopheles as perfectly evil, perfectly black — the sole author of all the evil in the life of Faust — then we are required to find Faust himself to be without fault. If Mephisto is perfectly black, then Faust himself must be perfectly white, despite his “insensate mood”. However, in every case, the evil done by Mephisto appears to have been done by Faust himself; he gives Gretchen the sleeping potion that kills her mother, wields the sword that kills her brother; it is in Faust's scholar's robe that Mephisto gives the Student (later Bachelor of Arts) such bad advice.

(As an aside, I would like to note that, while Faust himself would have been capable of brewing a poison-potion (indeed, it may in fact be the “juices brown” from the beginning of the play which killed Gretchen's mother), by no means would he, a dry-as-dust scholar, have been able to kill the soldier Valentine in a duel without Mephistopheles' supernatural aid.)

Therefore, Mephistopheles appears to be a part of the psyche of Faust; and if that's the case, then Mephistopheles is really nothing at all, and Faust himself is as black as can be — literally as black as the devil. The dialectical dilemma is then, that the two statements "Faust is purely white" and "Faust is purely black" are both true, as contradictory as they are. If it be possible to determine from the text which is true, then the dilemma is solved.

Now, in the Prelude in Heaven, the Doctor is described by The Lord as “ my servant, Faust” ; but he serves, as Mephisto immediately reminds The Lord, “most peculiarly”. Nevertheless, Faust is redeemed in the end, brought up to Heaven by the Mater Dolorosa. It seems, then, that in the eyes of The Lord that Faust is blameless. In that case, Mephistopheles really is a seperate entity, capable of bearing blame for his actions. Therefore, also, we can seperate the characters of Faust and Mephisto, and judge who Faust is, what his character is, on its own merits; an interesting study on its own, which I've written about in another place; but it goes without saying that his character is by no means incompatible with the actions of Mephistopheles.

So that it seems, in approaching Faust as a "morality play", we discover that the real moral of the tale, the Final Judgement of the Character of Faust, is in fact dialectically impossible to determine. For all that happens, Faust does indeed win his wager with Mephistopheles; and since Mephistopheles cannot have his soul by the terms of the bet, Faust is (ex hypothesis) guaranteed salvation.

In that case, the proper study of the play is not the character of Mephisto (who is necessarily idealized), but the character of Faust, and what it is in him that allows him to triumph and win the wager. The terms of the wager are simple: If Faust ever says to the present moment, “Ah, linger on, thou art so fair!”, then in that moment Faust will die instantly and Mephisto will have his soul (Ohs nos!)

It is precisely those feautures of Faust's personality which make him a “peculiar” servant of the Lord, which allow him to win the bet. In Mephisto's own words,

Unearthly are the fool's drink and his food;
The ferment drives him forth afar.
Though half aware of his insensate mood,
He asks of heaven every fairest star
And of the earth each highest zest,
And all things near and all things far
Can not appease his deeply troubled breast.

It is precisely this “ferment driving him forth afar”, this “deeply troubled breast”, that make Faust unable to say to the moment, “Ah, linger on, thou art so fair!” And, as the wise Lord knows, it is precisely this that allows him to win the bet and — despite the Devil's action on his behalf — to be redeemed in the end.

Why this should be so is the central mystery of the play; although I have a notion, it has not been turned as well as it needs to be — has not been proved and may, possibly, be itself fractal — and so I will hesitate for some time to put forward my own answer to that question.

Questions? Comments? Concerns?

Goethean Science

Every so often I'll come up with a link that I want to keep, and which I have neither a category nor a place for. So, I'll use this space on my homepage to highlight something or other that I think is very cool.

So, without further ado, the link for the day is Goethean Science. Goethe was one of the few scientists to make an enduring contribution to literature (or, otherwise said, one of the few men of letters to make enduring contributions to science).

Chiefly of interest — especially in connection with Goethe's greatest literary work (which is also Germany's greatest literary work) — are his thoughts and, be it said, feelings, regarding biology. Life — this is what fascinated Goethe and his pseudodoppelganger, Faust, and Goethe's views on which are sometimes said to anticipate the work of Darwin by a generation or two, for regarding the origin of Life, he believed definitely that life arose from the sea.

The depression of Faust in the first part of the drama, then, seems to stem from a need for science — not one of letters, which he knows and despises, but a real science of the nature according to his own vision of Her:

Into the whole how all things blend,
Each in the other working, living!

In other words, what Goethe wants from science is not to know the divisions of things into groups, but a mystical knowledge of all life as a single, vast organism, and it is precisely this vision that the book-learned Doctor Faustus years for. “Nature, where are thy breasts?”, he exclaims in his lament.

At any rate, the great Goethe's views of science and of life — not to mention of Art — are very well worth the exploration, especially his view of plant morphology, which arises from his panbiotic (my term) philosophy, yet led to advances in science which stand to this day.

Into the whole how all things blend,
Each in the other working, living!

For my part, though it be, perhaps, only an expression of respect for his Faust, I will certainly believe that Goethe's panbiosis, as a philosophy, is superior and would prove more fruitful to mankind if it were generally adopted, than either Linneaism-Darwinism or the biotheologism of the Discovery Institute.

The forms of life are dying, changing
The Form of Life yet conquers all.
— CMZ 9 / 10 / 08

Flow

I have recently been reading Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, which is a modern classic and which, in my opinion, is one of the better books on practical psychology available today. Flow, in short, is the psychological state induced by tackling of problems in the accomplishment of certain ends. It is almost (but not quite) the dhyana of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: when the mind recieves an unbroken flow of concentration on any object. In Flow, the object is the work at hand.

It is then a theory of teleological ethics; like the ethics of Aristotle, who is invoked in the first sentence of the book, its end is not success in the usual sense of the word, but happiness. In agreement with all sages, from Plato to Freud, that neither wealth, nor simple pleasure, nor honors and medals, are what we seek. What we seek is happiness — and moments of flow are when people feel the most happy.

It is quite correct, then, to call Flow a kind of Karma Yoga (that is, Union by Work) as described in the Bhagavad Gita.

There is a very, very good short article in Psychology Today by the same author, on The Creative Personality which is something like a briefer course to the book; it is also quite good. It is somewhat interesting to note, from the theoretical perspective, that Csikszentmihalyi (what a name) is not afraid to invoke “libido” in the Freudian sense of the term, writing:

One manifestation of energy is sexuality. Creative people are paradoxical in this respect also. They seem to have quite a strong dose of eros, or generalized libidinal energy, which some express directly into sexuality. At the same time, a certain spartan celibacy is also a part of their makeup; continence tends to accompany superior achievement. Without eros, it would be difficult to take life on with vigor; without restraint, the energy could easily dissipate.

It is also interesting to note that this is, essentially, the same theory which is espoused by every sect of æscetic mystics, that “without restraint, the energy could easily dissipate”. But sexuality in the end has little to do with the theory of Flow, per se, and the doctrines of æscetic mystics or, for that matter, of Freud, are not required hypotheses.

At any rate, I find the theory of Flow, as Csikszentmihalyi gives it, to be among the best of the "pop psychology" books, and I recommend it to anyone whose life seems — a waste.

Small Update to the Wayfarer's Guide to EverQuest

Made some small fixes to my Wayfarer's Guide to Norrath, mainly to the styling. The site is in disarray; and RPGExpert seems to have added a bunch of perplexing ASP.net code that has bloated every page to many times its ideal weight.

So far, I have only fixed Part I and Part II, although I do have a basic CSS template which works to make things easier.

Congress and the Supreme Court Attack to Destroy the Current Administration!

The above is, perhaps, the way it would be stated in the terms of a play in Steve Jackson Games' Illuminati: New World Order.

In a major, major development (see the Washington Post article, The White House's Immune Deficiency), the Supreme Court has flatly rejected...

“over their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the politicization of the Justice Department, including the mass firings of U.S. attorneys in 2006.”

...the White House's “excessively broad and legally insufficient claims of 'absolute immunity' — never recognized by any court — in declining to appear.”

The import of this is that Karl Rove and other high-ranking Bush officials have been subpoenad by Congress, and refused for the above reason; this gives Congress the ability to holding them in contempt of Congress,

Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.) — Wikipedia

What this means is that the Supreme Court has agreed with the Congress that members of the Bush Administration, including Karl Rove, can be punished for contempt of Congress. It is a sign that the Supreme Court will not protect the Administration from prosecution, and I believe it is a very promising measure of the political culture of our nation.

Iustus et Iusticus in Victoriam!

Oops

In the process of setting up an archive of the posts on this blog, I seem to have destroyed the whole text of them — irrevocably.

Oops. Shit. Well ... this was intended to be a “New Start” to the page. I guess it is now...

I beat Akuma!

I beat Akuma today in Street Fighter III Second Impact: Giant Attack; not only that, but I got a Perfect off him! Now, be it noted that I was playing Ryu, who is, I feel, a much stronger and sleeker character than my favorite, “Proto-Shoto-” Sean.

For my efforts, I took the top spot on the high-score list (reaching the complex prerequisites to fighting Akuma assure this) and got a little “t’ien” symbol next to my high score and my name ^†.

The next game I played, I chose Yun and promptly got my ass handed to me. Figures.

† I accidentally entered as “CDC ” as opposed to my customary “DED”.

P.S. 8/06/08 1819. Spent some time cleaning up a few little typo- graphical issues; fixed the title font and centered it in its box, added (for once) images in the main article text — and you have no idea how annoying it was to get things to line up. Have also made a few other changes. But really, until I have access to better graphics- manipulation software, the design and layout of this page are for the time being fixed.

In the meantime, I think I am going to save some of the "best of" blog posts and put them on their own page (just not today); this thing is getting way too bloated for my liking, although the stats are fine.