open All Channels
seplocked Intergalactic Summit
blankseplocked Post-humanity.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Ordo Novus Mul-Zatah
Posted - 2011.08.10 23:11:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Well ... my own experience of it is decidedly non-random.

If you need more, I could perhaps go try to find a scientific paper on the subject.


Just because all memories aren't equal in regard to the probability that they are forgotten doesn't make forgetting them non-random compared to memory loss in the instance of cloning. I'm sure one will find similar probability distribution in the latter case.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth


Of course they are. What may be reasonably expected of each lies wholly within the realm of human endeavor and experience.

For us, not so much.


Well, that's your claim. I don't see how it is a true claim.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
It seems like you'd be better off arguing different classes of stars, here. To assert that fusion reactions on such different scales are "the same" is like asserting that protozoans are as human as soldiers because they're both living things.


Well, in the case of protozoans and humans you have fundamental differences - not in regard to being living beings, certainly. So yes, they are fundamentally both livinmg beings. But protozoans aren't humans. Not because of differences in scale but because of fundamental differences they show as living beings.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
As an aside: Mr. Crenraven, in order to be useful, the term "human" must be narrow enough to have meaning. The breadth of that definition lies at the center of this debate. Ms. Mithra defines "human" much the way I define "person," but we both consider status as "human" to carry, more or less, the same moral requirements and expectations.


Thing here is, you've never even tried to give a definition of what you mean by 'human'. Thus claiming that something isn't human is easily defended. The soldier is within the scale of 'human' the capsuleer is not - because according to you he's not supposed to be. That's shifty work in my opinion.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
At base, she believes we can and should be held to traditional human standards of moral behavior. I do not.


Question here is: Why do you think we can't?

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Now, on to what I agree is the interesting bit:

Quote:
As it's a human condition all humans have to be considered to establish the norm.


What would this make of your faith, I wonder? Andreus Ixiris and his ilk already love painting you all as insane.


Well, I hope you will agree that there's a difference between taking all humans into account when finding out where the norm is or making a survey among all humans about where they'd like to have it. It's like asking all humans if spiders are insects and then, when most people opine that they are to believe that to be true: It's simply not how it works.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Alternative interpretation: many, most, or all capsuleers experience, at some point, a psychological "break" that fundamentally alters a certain aspect of human psychology. Since the human moral capacity appears to be an evolved trait (often analogized to language), albeit one not all humans possess, let's say (for the sake of argument) that the base capacity gets ripped out or overwritten with an alternative version.


Simple: Not being able to exercise this function is exactly the dysfunction. It's not differentiating capsuleers as a new species. Also, I can assure you, my instincs aren't any different from the common human being at least not any more than those of a soldier.

You again and again point out differences of scale and invoke that at some point they might have qualitative, fundamental differences as a result, but you fail to show that these fundamental differences are actually there.

The weird thing is, that your claim is exactly that capsuleers are dysfunctional, thus monsters. Well, in a way you're right: Dysfunctional humans can be the worst monsters we know. But that doesn't make them any less human.

Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Ordo Novus Mul-Zatah
Posted - 2011.08.10 23:23:00 - [62]
 

You repeatedly claimed that your view is less palatable for your usual non-capsuleer: That capsuleers are monsters, in-human ones and an entirely different species.

Truth is, though, that it's the easy, the convenient view compared to the one that tells every human that he himself has within him or her the potential to commit these abhorrent acts.

And that is why you, I think, opt for it: To "protect" your former fellow humans in your mind from the stigma of this potential - you don't want humans to be like that, to have this potential. And indeed, I think if you'd have to accept that you are still human, that you've utterly failed to achieve all that you've ever striven for.

Truth is, humans are fallible. But if we accept our failures, there's the possibility of redemption.

What is our place? The same as the place of every other human. Which does say a lot and not much of the same time. For the place of the soldier is another than the place of a farmer: But they are both within the range of places for humans in this cosmos. Even the lunatic, mass murdering, blood-drinking sociopath has a place in this cosmos that is within the range of what is human, so the capsuleer. Because the place of humans is to be fallible on the one side - but to be able to correct and elevate themselves on the other. While both is human, the latter is better, of course. But failing to do so doesn't make you any less human.

Yunaike Tlakotani
Posted - 2011.08.11 04:21:00 - [63]
 

I speak for one who cannot speak at present.
A rapid introduction. My boss was born a slave in Khanid space, the sire was one of the royal house.
Since then my boss has followed the path of a Cyber Knight. Here follow the cyber knight's words:
"I am uncertain of what the originator wishes from humanity and though it appears that he believes that capsuleers are the new gods, I would like to correct that. "
'Amarr and Khanid have had such technology long before capsules. Let me be clear, capsule pilots are an introduction of Jove tech that is very late.'
"Those of us who died earlier have also been cloned."
"My father is centuries old. The other members of the Royal Family have similar histories."
"So does Amarr."
"This enlightening fact has never prevented us from making human mistakes and falling prey to human greed."
"Capsules just make cloning more frequent, across light years and through many forms of violence and mishap."
My boss concludes with this thought... "if you think cloning and capsules deny humanity, think about becoming a cyberknight, where your very existence is thought patterns within a wave. Even so, God is with us and may God be with you also."

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.08.11 06:22:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 11/08/2011 06:25:13
Originally by: Nicoletta Mithra
I'm sure one will find similar probability distribution in the latter case.


Why? What evidence would support this theory of yours?

Quote:
But protozoans aren't humans. Not because of differences in scale but because of fundamental differences they show as living beings.


If two beings cannot follow the same species of morality, that would seem to be a fundamental difference. So would having multiple bodies instead of one and being wholly created from and dependent upon technology.

Quote:
Thing here is, you've never even tried to give a definition of what you mean by 'human'.


Ah-- but I have, many times.

That which I regard as human is that which is subject to the so-called "human condition." It can alternatively be defined as that which fills a human's role in this universe, though I admit that's a bit of a tautology. My core reason for believing we are not human is that we no longer occupy the same place in the scheme of things.

If what is expected of humanity can no longer be reasonably expected of us, then it is folly to call us human.

Quote:
Question here is: Why do you think we can't?


I can't. I've tried. It nearly drove me mad. Others have experienced the same.

Your experience was apparently different. Perhaps you are simply stronger-willed.

... Or better at self-deception.

Quote:
Not being able to exercise this function is exactly the dysfunction.


To call it a dysfunction implies that there is something "wrong" with us. While I occasionally use similar terminology of sickness ("capsuleer dementia"), you should be well aware by now that I do not consider us necessarily "damaged" in any way.

If we are indeed dysfunctional-- mad, sick-- then we should not be able to function well. If we are functional, that appears to suggest that we are either metamorphosing or being systematically adjusted. In which case, we are not "damaged"-- only changed.

Quote:
Dysfunctional humans can be the worst monsters we know. But that doesn't make them any less human.


If we are merely mad, then, yes, we are human.

I do not argue that we are "dysfunctional"-- or at least that we do not necessarily seem to be. I argue that we are "functional, but different."

Quote:
Truth is, humans are fallible. But if we accept our failures, there's the possibility of redemption.

... Even the lunatic, mass murdering, blood-drinking sociopath has a place in this cosmos that is within the range of what is human, so the capsuleer.


Ah-- but if we are insane, how would we accept our failures? Rare is the legal system or thoughtful person who regards the mad as responsible for their actions; they are, after all, living in their own internal universes, in which their actions make complete sense.

If we are mad, we are broken. Not evil, not morally culpable-- damaged. Hence the typical efforts to cure lunatics, rather than punish them, yes?

If I am simply mad, that is something I can live with, Ms. Mithra. Hopefully, I will never recover; if I did, I might well feel the need to cleanse the stain on my clan by slitting my throat.

As an aside, Mr. Crenraven: this is another long-standing aspect of the situation. In the course of my career, I have done a number of things that are unforgivable if I am human. In a funny sort of way, Ms. Mithra is literally trying to talk me to death.

As it stands, Ms. Mithra, you and I stare at each other through the surface of a mirror. You believe only your own side is real, and that the "real" Aria Jenneth is standing there with you.

I believe the "real" Aria Jenneth is long dead, and that only the reflection remains-- and, having lived on both sides of the mirror's surface, I know one side to be quite as real as the other.

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.08.11 17:45:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Yunaike Tlakotani
My boss concludes with this thought... "if you think cloning and capsules deny humanity, think about becoming a cyberknight, where your very existence is thought patterns within a wave...."


If you are talking about uploading, that is an interesting thing-- not least because uploading is illegal, and I am unaware of any exceptions granted.

If you are not, some clarification would be appreciated. Minds, in general, can be described as "thought patterns within a wave."

Regardless, the age of cloning and cybernetics is not of great significance to the question of whether we are human or not. The argument is formed from an aggregate of many observations: a human may be implanted, and remain human; may live long, and remain human; may be cloned, and remain (effectively) human.

Even some capsuleers seem to remain human for all intents and purposes. Clearly, we are a marginal case.

But it should be clear, from the numbers of us who do not-- cannot-- function any longer as human beings, which side of that margin we fall on.

I find it increasingly interesting that my most persistent opponents on these issues are, without fail, believers in the Amarrian god. The arguments differ, but the message is always the same.

Could this be, I wonder, because the Amarrian god extends favor only to humanity-- and, by extension, if we are not human, we will not be welcome in the kingdom of this god of yours?

Might it be that, from your hope of paradise and terror of its loss, you cannot agree, however strong the arguments on the other side are? Or might it be, more charitably, that you cannot, as a matter of faith, believe your service to your god and your beliefs would carry you away from the very ends you seek to serve?

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.08.11 20:33:00 - [66]
 

Who are the other Amarrians arguing with you, other than Templar Mithra, if I may ask ?

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.08.11 21:13:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Lyn Farel
Who are the other Amarrians arguing with you, other than Templar Mithra, if I may ask ?


Before Templar Mithra, it was Abbess Ashar Kor-Azor, who combined Ms. Mithra's moralism with a rather more razor-edged tongue.

There have been many others who have expressed a difference of opinion, but so far the long-running disagreements of the "multiple arguments over several threads that always follow the same well-worn routine" sort are always with Amarr.

Despite certain differences in interpretation and outlook, you, Templar Mithra, and the Abbess have all had in common a tendency to define "humanity" as broadly as possible, and to criticize any effort to define it more narrowly as an attempt to justify corruption and/or villainy. The Abbess further took the stance that I was a sort of false prophet, a dangerous pseudo-philosopher whose ideas were to be quashed by any possible means.

You and Ms. Mithra make comparatively pleasant debating partners, even if Ms. Mithra does seem to share the Abbess' desire to "warn" people about me.

Valkarth Tlakotani
Posted - 2011.08.11 21:26:00 - [68]
 

---comms on.
Away, now young one... Yunaike. I stand revealed.
I am Valkarth, of the union of Khanid and Miriya the Minmatar. As a cyberknight I have a unique perspective on 'post humanity'.
You who are capsuleers have felt the moment of death many times. Your memories at least retain some memory of pain, perhaps out of body experiences and such things that informorph psychology teaches you are 'scientific' matters.
To we who have been vouchsafed the divine experience the principle is simple. When you die my friends, you touch God.
It is not the 'amarrian god' by the way. We of Khanid origin and now many more in the Minmater Republic have seen the light as well. But let me put this in a more scientific light for you.
In science one must never exclude all possibliities, yet how many times have I heard scientists try to explain away the existence of a divine being? In past millenia I am sure that simple people would themselves worship even capsuleers for their perceived 'powers'.
Others have admitted that cloning facilities have many clone sources. Professor Kajurei Delainen has proven that a human' can become an informorph, melding with nanites to become more than the sum of the parts.
Yet how else to explain the Empress Sarum? God is with her and her victories shall continue until the whole of New Eden hails her as the saviour against corruption, sanshas and other fools. She has defied the ban against cloning Imperial flesh. Her divine self is quite simply based upon her soul.
Though I am no longer of human flesh, I leave you with this question... as the Amarrians have seen, does a human need to have flesh to be a human?

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.08.11 21:27:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Lyn Farel on 11/08/2011 21:32:34
As much as Abess KorAzor has been a sort of (brief) mentor for me in the past, I do not feel the need to argue against your analysises, which I mostly share. I can not be included in your theory about Amarrians here for that precise reason.

You can define humanity as broad as possible or as narrow as possible. This is just a matter of semantics and I prefer to use it broadly in the sense that I only consider infomorphs worth of interest in relation to the future. All the capsuleer entourage and wrapping is the crux of the debate but eventually puts us apart, conforming to your ideals. What detaches me of humanity is my pod and powers (the flesh). What attaches me to humanity is my infomorph (the mind/the soul), for that eventually infomorph will become a standard, because it goes pair with technological advance. But, yes, capsuleers have been put apart, and a merely a vanguard granted with huge powers, that will never be able to be completely attuned to the rest of humanity, unless this rest becomes capsuleers in turn.

Ultimately, we are two-sided people, and denying one of these sides (the capsule singularity or the humanity), is denying half of ourselves.

The only thing that confuses me is your resignation.

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.08.11 22:37:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 11/08/2011 22:47:06
Originally by: Valkarth Tlakotani
Yet how else to explain the Empress Sarum?


Greetings, Ms. Tlakotani. Welcome to the discussion.

Like you, I am a woman of faith. However, my faith demands no god to sustain it; indeed, I do not believe, were there a god of this world, such a being would be worthy of worship.

Based upon the nature of the world such a creator has built, an anthropomorphic god would have to love chaos, despise high ideals, and revel in human suffering.

The universe is not structured for human convenience, nor for any lasting triumph of humanity. It is a world characterized by toil, pain, and immense cruelty, inflicted by humans if not by the elements.

If your holy mission is to save humanity from all this, then I wonder what your god has to say to all those for whom your presently-stalled mission will arrive too late.

It is also, however, a universe of intense beauty if we look on it as something that was not built for us.

An anthropomorphic god, I cannot believe in. To arrive before such a being after our journey, here, would seem a kind of sick joke.

A universe of wonder, a single, seamless whole of which all things are part, a Totality of which we in all our billions form only the tiniest mote of dust, struggling through our lives as any species does, our very minds merely illusory constructs assembled by our biology to help us survive-- that, I can believe in.

It is an honor and privilege, simply to be aware of it.

I believe in no gods, nor in the march of progress I understand Ms. Farel holds sacred, nor even in myself as a separate entity. I believe only in Everything, and strive to perceive the reality beneath these layers of illusion spun by my own mind.

And when it comes to miracles, what I mostly believe in is situations that are very inconvenient for certain people to explain in any other way.


Ms. Farel:

Originally by: Lyn Farel
... I do not feel the need to argue against your analysises, which I mostly share. I can not be included in your theory about Amarrians here for that precise reason.


Hm. Well, certainly we are not as far apart on core issues as Ms. Mithra and I. However, I seem to recall you have had harsh words for me in the past-- that I was looking for excuses for my own depravity, as I recall. That is Ms. Mithra's accusation, as well.

Has your position changed to some degree? Or do I misremember?

Quote:
Ultimately, we are two-sided people, and denying one of these sides (the capsule singularity or the humanity), is denying half of ourselves.


... Ah. Duality.

Dualities are very attractive; they make things very neat and easy to understand, and they often provide solid metaphors. My "mirror" metaphor, above, is another. So, for that matter, is the discussion of us as "ghosts" instead of living humans.

But in the end, these are only teaching tools. The underlying reality is that there is no mirror, no "ghosts," no "humanity." There is only us, and our places in the universe. Take it a layer deeper, and "we" disappear, leaving only regions of reality-- zones of influence, connections, in the blur of relations that is the Totality.

You may wish your zone to remain near to those of humans. My own influence, however, seems to cast destructive ripples if I play at fitting so close alongside. The last time I played that game, Grandfather died.

... So I am content to be ... sort of an orbital body: near, but apart.

There will be no "human half" for me.

Quote:
The only thing that confuses me is your resignation.


You make me sound so sad. ... Perhaps I look that way. I do have regrets, but they have more to do with mistakes I have made than with how I see my nature.

I am content to be what I am, to play my role. The trick is to work out just exactly what that means before someone else I care for is hurt.

Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Ordo Novus Mul-Zatah
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:02:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra on 11/08/2011 23:13:23
Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Why? What evidence would support this theory of yours?


The functional anatomy of the brain? I guessed you're familiar enough with it and know that the evolutionary older olfactory bulbs figure more intensely in memory building because of their stronger connections to the basal parts of the brain. Flaws in these basic areas bring problems with them that few capsuleers exhibit.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
If two beings cannot follow the same species of morality, that would seem to be a fundamental difference.


But, as showed by me, capsuleers are able to follow human species of morality, as exemplified by me. Also: A bird unable to fly (e.g. because its wing is broken) doesn't make it a non-bird.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
So would having multiple bodies instead of one and being wholly created from and dependent upon technology.


I still have to see the capsuleer that is wholly created from and dependent on technology: We're not rogue drones. At least, I'm not. I'm not sure about you. Also, we don't have multiple bodies: if you want to argue this, we've a series of different bodies we use. Still, it can be argued that these full-body protheses aren't much different, fundamentally than any other protheses.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Ah-- but I have (given a definition of 'human'), many times.


Neither saying the human is defined by the "being subject to the human condition" nor "that it (definable as that) which fills a human's role in this universe" is a proper definition. Both are tautological and what's even worse in my opinion, but just open ends. What is the "conditio humana" or the "role of the human"? How do capsuleers deviate from it? Without giving both, your're mrely opining that "we no longer occupy the same place in the scheme of things", without opening a way to assess your argument - because it's not given at all.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
If what is expected of humanity can no longer be reasonably expected of us, then it is folly to call us human.


Is a bird no longer a bird because he can no longer do what can be resonably expected of a bird? If his wings are crippled, is he no longer a bird, because we can reasonably expect a bird being able to fly? I think not.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
I can't. I've tried. It nearly drove me mad. Others have experienced the same.


Simply because you can't and others experienced the same doesn't mean that all capsuleers can't. Even if most can't that doesn't mean that capsuleers can't. On the other side, if one member can, it's rather safe to assume that capsuleers have the potential to it. Just because you never succeeded at something it doesn't follow that you can't do so in principle.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Your experience was apparently different. Perhaps you are simply stronger-willed.

... Or better at self-deception.


Or I'm simply able to lead a life oriente at human moral standards and are moderately successful?

Quote:
Not being able to exercise this function is exactly the dysfunction.


To call it a dysfunction implies that there is something "wrong" with us. While I occasionally use similar terminology of sickness ("capsuleer dementia"), you should be well aware by now that I do not consider us necessarily "damaged" in any way.

Well, you consider us flawed by human standards. Then your reasoning is, that therefore we can't be humans. An easy way out of considering yourself flawed. Every mass-murderer could get out of his moral problems by this kind of reasoning: Many did in the history of humankind.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
If we are indeed dysfunctional-- mad, sick-- then we should not be able to function well.


Well, not all capsuleers are dysfunctional in my book. Many I know aren't. You seem to be - like a bird with crippled wings. You don't function well, in my opinion.

Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Ordo Novus Mul-Zatah
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:12:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra on 11/08/2011 23:14:02
Originally by: Aria Jenneth
If we are merely mad, then, yes, we are human.

I do not argue that we are "dysfunctional"-- or at least that we do not necessarily seem to be. I argue that we are "functional, but different."


See your theory is a good way out of being mad and/or a failure in regard to human moral standards. But it's ontologically rich. It's ontologically the much more elegant theory to assume some kind of dysfunction in what you claim to be the majority of capsuleers, instead of claiming the coming into existence of a new kind of beings by the capsule-technology. You've to give a very convincing argument for this. You've to show that difference, which has to be a fundamental difference, something more than 'we use advanced protheses' and 'I and other capsuleers have the experience trying to accept human standards of morality and failing at it'.
At least in my book, you have to give more than that.

Quote:
Ah-- but if we are insane, how would we accept our failures?


Oh, maybe you're unable to accept your failures. Then you're beyond hope of achieving that. It's quite possible for a human to be in such a state.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Rare is the legal system or thoughtful person who regards the mad as responsible for their actions; they are, after all, living in their own internal universes, in which their actions make complete sense.


Well, in most legal systems they aren't fully culpable, that is true: there are still consequences for the mass-murderer. Anyway: Being fallible isn't the same as legal culpability.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
If we are mad, we are broken. Not evil, not morally culpable-- damaged. Hence the typical efforts to cure lunatics, rather than punish them, yes?


Both fallability and repentence aren't legal or moral terms: They are rather arising out of a bigger anthropological perspective that sees the human as being gives a great range of states a human can be and looks at those from a teleological (not necessarily theological) viewpoint. In regard to punishment: In the case of a lunatic you do your best to cure him, but still, without regard to whether it's possible to do so or not, you take action to prevent them from harming others - or themselves - and they are assigned a legal guardian who manages their affairs. So, locking you away if you're crazy isn't a punishment. Still, society is justified to do so.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
If I am simply mad, that is something I can live with, Ms. Mithra. Hopefully, I will never recover; if I did, I might well feel the need to cleanse the stain on my clan by slitting my throat.


I'm sorry you feel like that. As you said yourself, if you've been mad, you aren't fully culpable.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
As an aside, Mr. Crenraven: this is another long-standing aspect of the situation. In the course of my career, I have done a number of things that are unforgivable if I am human. In a funny sort of way, Ms. Mithra is literally trying to talk me to death.


Well, there you're rather hard to yourself: As agreed you wouldn't be fully culpable. If you still feel the need to end your life under these conditions, I'm not to judge about this. Given you're a mentally healthy person it's your prerogative to end your life if you see fit. Doing the right things in your life weighs heavier than mere survival.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
As it stands, Ms. Mithra, you and I stare at each other through the surface of a mirror. You believe only your own side is real, and that the "real" Aria Jenneth is standing there with you.


Oh, I believe that your side is quite real. I merely believe it's not what you perceive it to be.

Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Ordo Novus Mul-Zatah
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:14:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
I believe the "real" Aria Jenneth is long dead, and that only the reflection remains-- and, having lived on both sides of the mirror's surface, I know one side to be quite as real as the other.


Oh, I really like your mirror-analogy. You think we both stare at each other 'through the surface a mirror'. But indeed, I try to point out, that you don't stare 'through' a mirror - especially not at each other. We both stand in front of the mirror, you stare at it and in your attempt to identify who you are and where you belong, you stare at the mirror image. I try to tell you, that you stared at it for so long, that you're convinced that this imperfect reflection is you and that it tells you something about where you should be, where you are - on the other side of the mirror.
Yes, mirrors are a good tool to analyse yourself and your situation. Just don't overdo it. A mirror image is never showing you the whole story.
It's too two-dimensional for that.

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.08.12 12:14:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Lyn Farel on 12/08/2011 12:22:39
Originally by: Aria Jenneth

An anthropomorphic god, I cannot believe in. To arrive before such a being after our journey, here, would seem a kind of sick joke.


An anthropomorphic god is a joke as soon as you consider the idea through a pure logical scope. We perfectly know that Humanity has never been the central point of the universe. Joining your point of view, Humans are merely specks of sand in the fabric of the universe, as much as ancient races were.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
I believe in no gods, nor in the march of progress I understand Ms. Farel holds sacred


It is not a question to hold the march of progress sacred, but more to hold sacred the quest for knowledge. Holding the march of progress sacred for the sake of progress has never done any good. But refering to a discussion we had around technological and social progress - another convenient duality - this is simply the road to the absolute Truth. Knowledge, not progress. Progress is only a logical breed and marking of knowledge, but does not constitutes its only essence in itself. The nuance is important to my eyes, because it would be like confusing a beam of dispersed light with the crystal prism of its source. The prism of knowledge beaming progress and evolution.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
However, I seem to recall you have had harsh words for me in the past-- that I was looking for excuses for my own depravity, as I recall. [...]

Has your position changed to some degree? Or do I misremember?


Did I ? I do not remember correctly the exact context, but you have my apologies if I was misunderstood. You might sound like if you are looking for excuses, not that you actually do it.



Originally by: Aria Jenneth

You may wish your zone to remain near to those of humans.


I perfectly know that as much as I see them everyday, I am not living in the same world and am already a whole other kind of species, and that this gap - due to the capsule - will eventually never be filled or fixed. I am not complaining either. I am as I am and this may be well suited for someone being agoraphobic and reclusive as I am.

However, what I may wish is more the quest for the Truth - said in a quite cheesy manner - and I perfectly know that capsuleers are nothing without the rest of humanity, and that humanity alone can achieve it. My capsuleer powers and abilities are paradoxaly colossal compared to theirs, but my ability to progress toward that goal alone is almost nonexistent. This is what we call symbiosis and evolution through community. If we are going into analogies, as much as I am being very cautious with their accuracy, you can be a part of a biotope, and have very few interactions with another species of this biotope, this does not mean that you are not dependant of said species, at the contrary.

Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Ordo Novus Mul-Zatah
Posted - 2011.08.12 20:09:00 - [75]
 

Ah, and there I totally forgot to comment on another important thing:

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
I find it increasingly interesting that my most persistent opponents on these issues are, without fail, believers in the Amarrian god. The arguments differ, but the message is always the same.

Could this be, I wonder, because the Amarrian god extends favor only to humanity-- and, by extension, if we are not human, we will not be welcome in the kingdom of this god of yours?


I think it is rather because we see it as our duty to speak out against such messages as yours. Nowhere in the Scripture is stated that God extends His favor only to humans. Nor do we have any other reason to assume he doesn't extend his favor to any other being that's playing the part in the cosmos as layed out in His plan.

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Might it be that, from your hope of paradise and terror of its loss, you cannot agree, however strong the arguments on the other side are? Or might it be, more charitably, that you cannot, as a matter of faith, believe your service to your god and your beliefs would carry you away from the very ends you seek to serve?


Might it be... ? No. As pointed out above if you were right such beings certainly had their place in God's creation. - You on the other hand have already said that by your religion you've a vested interest in not being human...

Valkarth Tlakotani
Posted - 2011.08.12 20:55:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Valkarth Tlakotani on 12/08/2011 20:55:10
Thank you for your kind welcome. I must add a piece to the puzzle.
Unlike Sansha and his beliefs, the one God has professed through many prophets that mortals must be allowed free will.

Where that will takes them is as you have mentioned, a loss of compassion, evil incarnate, whatever.
Those are lost humans.

The remainder of us are here to show a beacon. Should the rest of humanity decide to keep the flame burning, then they are with God. Even the lost can find themselves again.

Caellach Marellus
Gallente
Nephtys Ventures inc
Posted - 2011.08.13 11:08:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Valkarth Tlakotani
Edited by: Valkarth Tlakotani on 12/08/2011 20:55:10
Unlike Sansha and his beliefs, the one God has professed through many prophets that mortals must be allowed free will.


And here my ears have twitched. Would you have any citation to back up this comment, it would be of great personal interest.

Thankyou.

CCP Navigator


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.14 11:05:00 - [78]
 

ooc reply removed.

Valkarth Tlakotani
Posted - 2011.08.14 20:20:00 - [79]
 

I can only refer you to the holy books that the prophets of Amarr and Khanid own.
The ancient tech-notes of the legendary Terra are purported to be the origins of such books. Our one God is the same who was worshipped millenia ago. For me that is proof enough.
Of course some of the ancient tech of the Takhmahl and other civiliations retain the original writings, but these are for the use of my people only.

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:32:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Valkarth Tlakotani
I can only refer you to the holy books that the prophets of Amarr and Khanid own.
The ancient tech-notes of the legendary Terra are purported to be the origins of such books. Our one God is the same who was worshipped millenia ago. For me that is proof enough.
Of course some of the ancient tech of the Takhmahl and other civiliations retain the original writings, but these are for the use of my people only.


Stating that the current Amarrian God is the same than an old Terran one is speculation to my opinion. As much as we have a fair amount of written traces dating back to the arrival in New Eden, we definitly lack a precise and complete view of what was their culture before, and this includes religions. We can probably suppose that religions were similar in nature in the past for all the similarities they present, but nothing more. We also know that by reading the writings of Geinok the First, he almost started a whole brand new religion by himself, based on something older or not.

Also, Takhmahl tech is considered heretical by the Amarr Empire, and Talocan tech, apocryphon, if I am not mistaken.

Valkarth Tlakotani
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:56:00 - [81]
 

'The Khanid are not known to be as religious-minded as the Amarrians, but when they are they tend to be even more fanatical. Religious Khanids are often involved in cults of some sort, usually ones based more or less on the Scriptures. The Amarrians regard religious Khanids with suspicious interest; on one hand they are alarmed by the extremism often shown by the Khanids, but on the other the religious fervor displayed often results in deep theosophical insights.'
-Tenebre

As in the factbook excerpt above, the Amarr is not our only source of theology. Thus whether apocryphal or heretical, investigation of exterior tech continues. What we find and use must of necessity complement our own beliefs. As such, you can see that something has indeed been found and that it does not go against the majority religion of the Khanid Kingdom. That I do not reveal it and instead refer you to the holy books indicates that it is both related to the inner secrets of the religion and to the reality of everyday life. [ie technology]

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:56:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Nicoletta Mithra
Ah, and there I totally forgot to comment on another important thing:


We did produce sort of a sea of them. I hope you'll excuse me if I prefer to discuss a few points at a time-- though I will try to get to all of them in time.

So let's start with the big one, shall we?

Quote:
Nowhere in the Scripture is stated that God extends His favor only to humans. Nor do we have any other reason to assume he doesn't extend his favor to any other being that's playing the part in the cosmos as layed out in His plan.


Hm. Well, I'll take your word for it, though I have spoken with other Amarr who seemed to feel otherwise.

The Reclaiming, to my understanding, is specific to reuniting the scattered tribes of humanity, but I suppose other instructions might exist for other beings.

Quote:
You on the other hand have already said that by your religion you've a vested interest in not being human...


You misunderstand badly.

Achura Shuijing calls only for me to recognize truth where I see it, and to understand and embrace it for what it is, however ugly or difficult to accept.

The underlying truth?

What we name ourselves does not change, nor need it even reflect, the underlying reality. "Human" is a word, a symbolic representation of a concept. Where we set those borders will not change the outline of the vague smear of related beings.

We can, with justification, call the Jove human, or Kuvakei's hapless minions. We can extend it to any surviving Sleeper uploads, as well, though any such beings likely lack biology of any kind as anything more than a memory. We could probably, with some effort, extend it to the rogue drones, though that would take some serious doing and would likely stretch the word into near-uselessness.

You can call us human if you like, and believe that your use of the word has meaning. I decline, not because I do not believe the word can be applied, but because it is not useful for us to do so.

My faith calls for me to see illusions for what they are-- not necessarily to banish them. Many illusions make excellent tools, despite not being real. Take money, for instance.

Another: consciousness.

Consciousness arises as the bio-electric guidance system of an organism. It is well-designed to keep that organism alive: causing it to recognize the "self" and seek to preserve it. The processes of "thought" are the interactions of input from outside with existing internal patterns-- cause and effect, just like everything else, but so complicated that, though "free will" is a fiction, it might as well exist.

In order to form communities, civilizations, the better to survive, we make up stories for ourselves. Some of these are meant to reflect reality in an immediately useful way: "table," "glass," "me," "you."

Others draw people together, give them identity and direction, produce unity and knit a society together: "tribe," "people," "Empress" ... "God."

These are useful concepts, but in the end the ideas they reflect are phantoms-- only as real as we make them.

When I say that we are not human, Ms. Mithra, I am using illusion as a teaching tool, attempting to establish for our kind some useful, lasting role in this universe.

We were made to be what we are. Call it a blessing or call it a curse; either way, there may be purpose for us here, a role, a part to play. But if we accept your vision of us, we are simply doomed.

You may have the will, or the faith, or the stubbornness to act a human's part and do it well, but you will remain an outlying case.

You will never make the Demented other than they are. Whether that is because they are insane or because they no longer fit within the bounds of what is "human" is frankly beside the point.

I work within the realm of the possible, working towards a an understanding of ourselves that will let us function, and that does not depend on "what could be, if only".

Insight and acceptance: that is my faith.

Qansh
Gallente
Triskelion Ouroboros
Posted - 2011.08.17 02:02:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Consciousness arises as the bio-electric guidance system of an organism. It is well-designed to keep that organism alive: causing it to recognize the "self" and seek to preserve it. The processes of "thought" are the interactions of input from outside with existing internal patterns-- cause and effect, just like everything else, but so complicated that, though "free will" is a fiction, it might as well exist.

Consciousness neither exists nor does not exist, or it wouldn't be consciousness. Since it does not exist, it has not been created. Since it is also the case that it does not not exist (though without being created), it is therefore eternal. Since it has not been created, it does not arise on behalf of anything nor has it been designed (well or otherwise) for any purpose. Since it is consciousness, it will take care of any recognizing, thank-you-very-much (hmm, perhaps even using a body and a brain and a reflective self). The inputs from outside and the existing internal patterns might chug along quite nicely but, after all, consciousness happens to not not be here and one might begin to wonder why (for free will, perhaps, or would that take some form of existing or not existing?).

Note that I haven't denied the existence (or illusory quality) of the "self". Nor have I allowed my own definition to partake of illusion -- how so? Because I haven't any clue how one might imagine (or even create) a paradox. Generally, one has to be able to see an object for it to be an illusion and, the truth is, I can't see this at all. (Hmm, perhaps you can't see it either? <wink>) And if we can't see it, then shouldn't we say that the process alone has failed? Either that or it's a hell of an illusion machine that can make something that can't even be held in the mind (kudos to matter),

because, well, hell, this is what I'm getting.

(No need to reply. Just dance.)

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.08.17 11:00:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Qansh

Consciousness neither exists nor does not exist, or it wouldn't be consciousness.


Huh... What ? I fail to understand the logic behind.

Qansh
Gallente
Triskelion Ouroboros
Posted - 2011.08.17 13:31:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Lyn Farel
Originally by: Qansh

Consciousness neither exists nor does not exist, or it wouldn't be consciousness.


Huh... What ? I fail to understand the logic behind.

I imagine it's something like the logic behind event horizons, black holes, quantum foam and all that other stuff that, well, I've never paid much attention to except on how to avoid them or not be rendered into them. Logic breaks down, I imagine, and that leaves room enough "to dance" (or escape the purely mechanical). God or consciousness (or at some point, matter, I suppose) -- it all goes to the same place, for "Whatever cannot be fundamentally conceived of is identical to whatever else cannot be fundamentally conceived of"... or something like that.

There's a process of consciousness, sure, which does exist and which Aria referred to. I just think that there's always going to be that missing kernel and that's what I'm talking about... "that One Thing which is No-Thing and to which nothing else may apply" (as some Intaki monks have been known to chant). That little sucker is always going to escape the desire to put it into a box or claim that it is only the result of and not as equally likely the cause or means of something.

That's the best way I can describe it right now. Hopefully there's some real science that can give it a nod or two.

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.08.17 14:48:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Qansh
I just think that there's always going to be that missing kernel and that's what I'm talking about... "that One Thing which is No-Thing and to which nothing else may apply" (as some Intaki monks have been known to chant). That little sucker is always going to escape the desire to put it into a box or claim that it is only the result of and not as equally likely the cause or means of something.


If you're saying that we will never be able to pin down the exact mechanics of conscious thought or that we will never be able to find any single place in the brain where consciousness resides, you are likely right.

Consciousness is very likely an emergent process: a product of complex interactions that cannot easily be reduced to the mere sum of its parts. This does not imply the presence of a separate "soul" or even the reality of the "self"; what it implies is only the capability of multiple systems to interact in ways that are not evident from observing their operation individually.

It is, however, also both a weaver of fictions and a fiction itself in that it carves the universe apart, labeling zones of it according to function. The most important and basic illusion is the separateness of the self.

Doing so does not change the underlying reality of a seamless Totality. A "glass" is a glass to you not because the universe believes it to be so, but because you designate it as such. It is the same with you: you are a part of this universe, inescapably. Whatever you do, you will mark it, and it will mark you-- as it should be. You are not, cannot be, apart from it.

Raze Valadeus
Amarr
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.08.17 14:54:00 - [87]
 

Edited by: Raze Valadeus on 17/08/2011 15:02:54
Miss Jenneth,

"Insight and acceptance: this is my faith."

This is not faith, it is observation and philosophy - they are very different things.

Your assessment of existence and the truths you claim to accept are based on the assumption that your perception is the full scope and thus the final authority on what truth is.

The faithful's assessment of existence is based on the assumption that God is the final authority on what truth is and that his perception is the full scope - well beyond our own limited understanding.

The two viewpoints cannot be rectified, they are polar opposites. One places all authority and deity in self, while the other places all authority and deity in the supernatural.

Faith is the acceptance that God's perception is greater than our own, that his understanding is beyond our own and that he exists as the final authority on truth and reality, and the insight garnered from this acceptance drives us toward the Supernatural's will.

Understand that I am not attempting to attack your philosophy on life, I am explaining the fundamental difference in perception and why those who claim to live by faith and those who claim to live by science and insight have very different perception.

You live by philosophy and science.

I live by faith.

EDIT: I should clarify that I am also not saying that science and faith are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I believe that they intermingle more than we sometimes notice and that science explains what can be explained and faith explains what cannot within the realm of observation and existence.


Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.08.17 16:50:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 17/08/2011 16:53:30
Originally by: Raze Valadeus
This is not faith, it is observation and philosophy - they are very different things.


Ah! ... Thank you for bringing this up, Mr. Valadeus. You are nearly right, but not quite. My perception is at once a tool and an obstacle; I cannot help but rely on it to some degree, but it is not the core of what I rely on.

My sect can indeed be described to some degree in terms of philosophy (where is the faith that cannot?). Our stories do contain gods, spirits, and creatures out of legend, but we use them as teaching tools: even if these beings did exist, they would simply be further parts of the Totality.

I do not believe in sentient, anthropomorphic gods, Amarrian or otherwise, yet I am no atheist. What I believe in is the astonishment that is the Totality itself. I believe that by exploring it, seeking to understand it and our place in it, we can live better, fuller lives. I believe that the greatest achievement for any being in this world to aspire to is to perceive the Totality, to follow with it, to conform to its flow-- to move as it moves, to exist in absolute unity with all that is.

... To be a part of the river, to flow as it flows, without arrogance or resistance: to be, perfectly, whatever the practitioner is-- that is the ultimate goal of my practice. It is the utter and absolute surrender of the fictitious self to that which is far greater-- to that which is real, not to some petty pretender like Kuvakei or a mythological father-figure, but to the universe itself in all its wonder.

I believe in the unity of all things, and have faith that pursuing that unity will lead to better ends. My own perceptions are limited and untrustworthy, and I am far from wise. Yet I seek to grasp the All, and hope one day to perceive what my mind and heart know to be true.

That my faith is not transcendental in character does not prevent it from being faith, Mr. Valadeus. I seek to place my fate and will, not in the hands of something distant and hopefully benevolent, but in those of something not only close, but omnipresent-- something only my own arrogance and skill at mental self-deception prevents me from seeing.

The real difference between our faiths, Mr. Valadeus, is that while you place yours in an absent architect, I place mine in the unified essence, the soul, of all that is.

Achura Shuijing is unusual among the Achur sects in that it does not take the Creator, our ancestors, or any lesser spirits as literal truths, but it is a faith, even so: we believe, and the sect's monks give over their lives to pursuit of that belief. That tradition is where my spiritual training comes from.

The fact that my god has no face, nor, most likely, a single mind that we would recognize as such, does not prevent this from being faith.

Qansh
Gallente
Triskelion Ouroboros
Posted - 2011.08.17 17:56:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
I believe in the unity of all things, and have faith that pursuing that unity will lead to better ends... My own perceptions are limited and untrustworthy, and I am far from wise. Yet I seek to grasp the All, and hope one day to perceive what my mind and heart know to be true.

That my faith is not transcendental in character does not prevent it from being faith, Mr. Valadeus. I seek to place my fate and will, not in the hands of something distant and hopefully benevolent, but in those of something not only close, but omnipresent-- something only my own arrogance and skill at mental self-deception prevents me from seeing.

I realize that you were responding to Mr. Valadeus, but if I could jump in for a bit...

I'd say that we don't seem so far apart after-all (a closer reading of your earlier remarks might have shown me that). But here's where I came up short -- how can this knowledge not be transcendental? Elsewhere you say, "I believe that the greatest achievement for any being in this world to aspire to is to perceive the Totality..." I find it hard to imagine a difference between perceiving the Totality and finding God. It's all in the nomenclature, I guess. You might perceive the Totality but whatever is outside the Totality in order to perceive it (and I don't see how we can think of perception otherwise), wouldn't that be God? You get your Totality. Mr. Valadeus gets his God (well, maybe not his anthropomorphic one, if he indeed holds to that, that is unless he wants to be the anthromorph in question). Now, you can say that the Totality includes the ultimate perceiver and I'm sympathetic to that, but that doesn't change the forever-something-outside-looking-in paradox of our limited thinking. I think there's room for the concept of God in such a thing or at least a god (or daemon) who falls just short of the ultimate perceiver, whether that be a projection of our future selves or a form of consciousness in its own right.

Signing off. (I have a cereal box here that is just dying to be read).

Raze Valadeus
Amarr
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.08.17 17:59:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Aria Jenneth

The fact that my god has no face, nor, most likely, a single mind that we would recognize as such, does not prevent this from being faith.


An interesting clarification, thank you for it. My understanding of your philosophy was based solely on what I've read from your continuing "journal" and statements here, as I've never spoken with an Achura about it.

With the understanding I have based on this clarification, yes it could be defined as faith. Just a very different one than others, I suppose. The perspective is still aimed in very different directions, as well.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only