mirror of
https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
synced 2024-06-29 10:36:48 +02:00
ported two blog posts, took out srs article for now
This commit is contained in:
parent
b393b0d171
commit
fed418cdd5
|
@ -3,6 +3,9 @@
|
||||||
All major changes on the site
|
All major changes on the site
|
||||||
=============================
|
=============================
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 2011/03/11: Removed SRS article for reworking, transfered some posts from
|
||||||
|
[Blog] to site.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- 2010/12/31: Got a [Blog] again.
|
- 2010/12/31: Got a [Blog] again.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- 2010/11/15: Added [Kickstarting Motivation], cool technique I recently
|
- 2010/11/15: Added [Kickstarting Motivation], cool technique I recently
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ cool stuff I found out to myself? Information ought to be free, after all.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The unobserved life is not worth living.
|
The unobserved life is not worth living.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [On Purpose]
|
||||||
|
- [On The Crucifixion]
|
||||||
- [Gospel of Muflax]
|
- [Gospel of Muflax]
|
||||||
- [There Is Only Quale], a piece on dreams, memory and space ships
|
- [There Is Only Quale], a piece on dreams, memory and space ships
|
||||||
- a [Philosophical Survey]
|
- a [Philosophical Survey]
|
||||||
|
@ -40,7 +42,7 @@ The unobserved life is not worth living.
|
||||||
- my review of [Find the Bug]
|
- my review of [Find the Bug]
|
||||||
- a bit about [Nicknames]
|
- a bit about [Nicknames]
|
||||||
- a meditation on [Xmonad]
|
- a meditation on [Xmonad]
|
||||||
- [Why I love my SRS], or, How to hack your long-term memory
|
<--- [Why I love my SRS], or, How to hack your long-term memory-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[Software]
|
[Software]
|
||||||
==========
|
==========
|
||||||
|
@ -65,6 +67,8 @@ Some of the stuff I wrote.
|
||||||
[Polyphasic Sleep]: /experiments/sleep/polyphasic_sleep.html
|
[Polyphasic Sleep]: /experiments/sleep/polyphasic_sleep.html
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[Reflections]: /reflections
|
[Reflections]: /reflections
|
||||||
|
[On The Crucifixion]: /reflections/crucifixion.html
|
||||||
|
[On Purpose]: /reflections/purpose.html
|
||||||
[Philosophical Survey]: /reflections/survey.html
|
[Philosophical Survey]: /reflections/survey.html
|
||||||
[Letting Go of Music]: /reflections/letting_go_of_music.html
|
[Letting Go of Music]: /reflections/letting_go_of_music.html
|
||||||
[Consciousness Explained]: /reflections/con_exp.html
|
[Consciousness Explained]: /reflections/con_exp.html
|
||||||
|
|
472
src/reflections/crucifixion.pdc
Normal file
472
src/reflections/crucifixion.pdc
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,472 @@
|
||||||
|
% On The Crucifixion
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<div align="center"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="480" height="390" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PZBqsqvfj0Y?fs=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PZBqsqvfj0Y?fs=1" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We know that the crucifixion of Christ is a myth[^1]. We also know that it isn't
|
||||||
|
unique; there are plenty of life-death-rebirth gods. The theme goes back to at
|
||||||
|
least 2,000BCE in its explicit form. But what's the charm? What is its
|
||||||
|
attraction?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
There are two points that can be made, I believe.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The first would be a [Jaynesian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes)
|
||||||
|
argument; that the early "reborn" gods are hallucinations of former rulers that
|
||||||
|
continued beyond their death. The king would give commands, many of which were
|
||||||
|
in the form of explicit voice-hallucinations by his subjects, and as such they
|
||||||
|
tended to hang around a while after the king's death. The bodily death of a
|
||||||
|
person didn't wipe it out completely; resurrection becomes obvious. (I'm not
|
||||||
|
gonna give a detailed account how this worked, for Jaynes and others have
|
||||||
|
already done so.) I find this very convincing for many cases. [^2]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In the case of Jesus, however, we have a somewhat different scenario. For one,
|
||||||
|
it plays out much too late. The bicameral mind would've already largely been
|
||||||
|
gone, so it seems unlikely that many of the early believers actually had the
|
||||||
|
dead still hanging around. (Which, of course, is the main reason reborn gods
|
||||||
|
have fallen out of favor since then.) Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the
|
||||||
|
man existed in the first place. His resurrection was not a construction to
|
||||||
|
explain away his incomplete death; instead, death came first and life was build
|
||||||
|
around it much later.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Luckily, early Christianity is the best documented idea of the whole ancient
|
||||||
|
world, so let's take a closer look how the story unfolded.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
There are two sources we can build on, Mark and Paul[^3]. Additionally, we will
|
||||||
|
take a look at John, as will become clear soon. While it may be possible that
|
||||||
|
Mark is actually a later, condensed gospel, I find the argument for it
|
||||||
|
unconvincing. The story is much too sober and it already has signs of extension,
|
||||||
|
so it seems more likely to me that Mark is one of the earliest documents, maybe
|
||||||
|
even the first written gospel, period.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What stands out in Mark's gospel is the lack of a biography. Jesus appears out
|
||||||
|
of nowhere, gets baptized, heals a lot of people, appoints his staff and finally
|
||||||
|
is killed. The miracle stories are very non-specific, giving just minimalist
|
||||||
|
accounts, reminiscent of today's anecdotes about "spiritual healers" (c.f.
|
||||||
|
[Sathya Sai Baba](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba)). The person
|
||||||
|
described here is just one con-man among many, with some Jewish justification
|
||||||
|
thrown in in an obvious attempt to later support his authority over the Jews,
|
||||||
|
capitalizing on John the Baptist as well.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
But the tone changes dramatically at the end. Suddenly, Jesus becomes insecure
|
||||||
|
and actually takes his own practices seriously. Before, you get the impression
|
||||||
|
he is doing all the miracles, handing out the teachings only for his own profit
|
||||||
|
or to shut people up. Now, he begs God to save him! This might certainly be a
|
||||||
|
later addition, retconning a sudden arrest into an expected betrayal. Yet
|
||||||
|
observe Jesus on the cross. Mark (15-16) tells it like this[^4]:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him. The inscription of
|
||||||
|
> the charge against him read, "The king of the Jews". And they crucified two
|
||||||
|
> outlaws with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by
|
||||||
|
> defamed him, shaking their heads and saying, "Aha! You who can destroy the
|
||||||
|
> temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself and come down from the
|
||||||
|
> cross!" In the same way even the chief priests - together with the experts in
|
||||||
|
> the law - were mocking him among themselves: "He saved others, but he cannot
|
||||||
|
> save himself! Let the Christ, the king of Israel, come down from the cross
|
||||||
|
> now, that we may see and believe!" Those who were crucified with him also
|
||||||
|
> spoke abusively to him.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> Now when it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the
|
||||||
|
> afternoon. Around three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi,
|
||||||
|
> Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken
|
||||||
|
> me?" When some of the bystanders heard it they said, "Listen, he is calling
|
||||||
|
> for Elijah!" Then someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a
|
||||||
|
> stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Leave him alone! Let's see if
|
||||||
|
> Elijah will come to take him down!" But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and
|
||||||
|
> breathed his last.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This Son of Man is clearly panicking, not in control at all. He dies on the
|
||||||
|
cross and is quickly buried.[^5] Finally, Mark concludes:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Then as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe
|
||||||
|
> sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, "Do not
|
||||||
|
> be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has
|
||||||
|
> been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. But
|
||||||
|
> go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into
|
||||||
|
> Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you." Then they went out and
|
||||||
|
> ran from the tomb, for terror and bewilderment had seized them. And they said
|
||||||
|
> nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It just ends there. Jesus doesn't even appear after his death. None of his
|
||||||
|
teachings, in any way, justify his death or give it any meaning whatsoever. He
|
||||||
|
is just suddenly taken away and killed, story over. The earlier "prophecies" and
|
||||||
|
assurances that it went "just as planned" are clearly later additions, but the
|
||||||
|
core seems very harsh. In fact, there's barely any attempt at wisdom or
|
||||||
|
teaching![^6] This gospel is not about resurrection at all.[^7]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Now let's take a look at Paul. Taking a conservative approach[^8], there are
|
||||||
|
four authentic letters, namely Romans, I+II Corinthians and Galatians. Some of
|
||||||
|
the others might be authentic, at least partially, but existing dogma hides the
|
||||||
|
early developments we want to see. Paul writes about a lot of stuff, much of
|
||||||
|
which is of little importance to us. Like Mark, he rarely gives any *explicit
|
||||||
|
teaching* about or by Jesus. He insists that truth is revealed to him by God,
|
||||||
|
but he never feels the need to actually articulate this truth. Some vague
|
||||||
|
sentiments and emotional sing-song are enough.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For example, in I Corinthians 1:11-31, Paul writes:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> For Christ did not send me to baptize[^9], but to preach the gospel - and not
|
||||||
|
> with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless. For
|
||||||
|
> the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to
|
||||||
|
> us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will
|
||||||
|
> destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the
|
||||||
|
> intelligent." Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law?
|
||||||
|
> Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world
|
||||||
|
> foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know
|
||||||
|
> God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of
|
||||||
|
> preaching. For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we
|
||||||
|
> preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to
|
||||||
|
> Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the
|
||||||
|
> power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than
|
||||||
|
> human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> Think about the circumstances of your call, brothers and sisters. Not many
|
||||||
|
> were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were born to a
|
||||||
|
> privileged position. But God chose what the world thinks foolish to shame the
|
||||||
|
> wise, and God chose what the world thinks weak to shame the strong. God chose
|
||||||
|
> what is low and despised in the world, what is regarded as nothing, to set
|
||||||
|
> aside what is regarded as something, so that no one can boast in his presence.
|
||||||
|
> He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus, who became for us
|
||||||
|
> wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that,
|
||||||
|
> as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Paul is very explicit here in his outright rejection of any kind of argument. No
|
||||||
|
wonder the teaching is so lacking of content; it is empty on purpose! Paul takes
|
||||||
|
his conviction from the warm, fuzzy feelings he gets when he thinks of (not
|
||||||
|
about!) the Christ. Everything else, he argues from Jewish law or his own
|
||||||
|
prejudices. There is literally nothing about the actual crucifixion or even the
|
||||||
|
character of Jesus Christ in there. It is merely a source for him to draw all
|
||||||
|
this "faith" from.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What, then, is the crucifixion? What did later Christians get it *from*? All we
|
||||||
|
have seen so far are miracles stories, interpretations of Jewish law and some
|
||||||
|
organizational issues.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What we really see happening is a hijacking. Gnostic thinkers, most notably
|
||||||
|
[Marcion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope) and [Simon
|
||||||
|
Magus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus)[^10], develop their own
|
||||||
|
theology, based on Jewish mythology, a rejection of Jewish law and many (mostly
|
||||||
|
Greek) mystic techniques. To increase mass appeal, they retrofit it into
|
||||||
|
existing legends and begin a process of "historization", identifying a spiritual
|
||||||
|
messiah figure with an actual person. Over time, the idea of a Jewish faith
|
||||||
|
healer as central figure of a cosmic struggle sticks, people like it and the
|
||||||
|
myth moves. Mark assimilates anecdotes and myth into a plausible story.
|
||||||
|
Followers like it, but the narrative is severely lacking. Luke and Matthew
|
||||||
|
rewrite it, introducing many new popular anecdotes, giving Jesus an actual
|
||||||
|
character and adding a proper arc structure. Now intellectuals can find
|
||||||
|
something in there, too! That's the way the story should've happened, you know.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Believing that Jesus must have lived (others say so), and that his teachings
|
||||||
|
must've been profound (his followers swear by it), mystics start substituting
|
||||||
|
their own ideas for whatever really happened and teach what they thought the
|
||||||
|
Son of Man should've taught. Full fan-fiction mode kicks in and a couple of
|
||||||
|
decades later, all coherent structure is gone. The New Testament is born,
|
||||||
|
optimized for sounding as profound and authoritative as possible without
|
||||||
|
excluding any prevailing idea, pandering to as many biases and prejudices as
|
||||||
|
possible.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In other words, the crucifixion is a form of secularization[^11], making
|
||||||
|
abstract mystic teaching more palpable by giving them concrete form. We could
|
||||||
|
look at early Gnostic documents or try to reconstruct them from similar, but
|
||||||
|
better documented traditions (say, the Upanishads, the Pali Canon or Crowley's
|
||||||
|
work). But let's unravel it from the inside.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We come now to John, whose gospel is a clear case of later Christian editing of
|
||||||
|
an originally Gnostic document. Just look at this beginning:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
|
||||||
|
> fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by
|
||||||
|
> him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In
|
||||||
|
> him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines on
|
||||||
|
> in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Except for a change of names, this is exactly the basic Gnostic world view of
|
||||||
|
the Supreme God from whom all other beings emanate, of the broken Demiurge that
|
||||||
|
makes the world but doesn't understand it, and of Sophia (wisdom) who brings the
|
||||||
|
divine spark into this world, giving humanity its soul and way of liberation.
|
||||||
|
John's new Jesus is divine in ways he never was in Mark. God is not Jehovah
|
||||||
|
anymore - the god that walked the earth, talked to people and messed with their
|
||||||
|
affairs. John's God is as unworldly as can be.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
But back to the cross. After preparing his disciples for the upcoming sacrifice,
|
||||||
|
Jesus is arrested and found guilty. John gives us a much more detailed story.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> So they took Jesus, and carrying his own cross he went out to the place called
|
||||||
|
> "The Place of the Skull" (called in Aramaic Golgotha). There they crucified
|
||||||
|
> him along with two others, one on each side, with Jesus in the middle. Pilate
|
||||||
|
> also had a notice written and fastened to the cross, which read: "Jesus the
|
||||||
|
> Nazarene, the king of the Jews." Thus many of the Jewish residents of
|
||||||
|
> Jerusalem read this notice, because the place where Jesus was crucified was
|
||||||
|
> near the city, and the notice was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Then
|
||||||
|
> the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The king of the
|
||||||
|
> Jews', but rather, 'This man said, I am king of the Jews.'" Pilate answered,
|
||||||
|
> "What I have written, I have written."
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> Now when the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and made four
|
||||||
|
> shares, one for each soldier, and the tunic remained. (Now the tunic was
|
||||||
|
> seamless, woven from top to bottom as a single piece.) So the soldiers said to
|
||||||
|
> one another, "Let's not tear it, but throw dice to see who will get it." This
|
||||||
|
> took place to fulfill the scripture that says, "They divided my garments among
|
||||||
|
> them, and for my clothing they threw dice." So the soldiers did these things.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> Now standing beside Jesus' cross were his mother, his mother's sister, Mary
|
||||||
|
> the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. So when Jesus saw his mother and the
|
||||||
|
> disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, look,
|
||||||
|
> here is your son!" He then said to his disciple, "Look, here is your mother!"
|
||||||
|
> From that very time the disciple took her into his own home.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> After this Jesus, realizing that by this time everything was completed, said
|
||||||
|
> (in order to fulfill the scripture), "I am thirsty!" A jar full of sour wine
|
||||||
|
> was there, so they put a sponge soaked in sour wine on a branch of hyssop and
|
||||||
|
> lifted it to his mouth. When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said, "It is
|
||||||
|
> completed!" Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> Then, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not
|
||||||
|
> stay on the crosses on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was an especially
|
||||||
|
> important one), the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to have the victims' legs
|
||||||
|
> broken and the bodies taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of
|
||||||
|
> the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the
|
||||||
|
> other. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did
|
||||||
|
> not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and
|
||||||
|
> blood and water flowed out immediately. And the person who saw it has
|
||||||
|
> testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the
|
||||||
|
> truth), so that you also may believe. For these things happened so that the
|
||||||
|
> scripture would be fulfilled, "Not a bone of his will be broken." And again
|
||||||
|
> another scripture says, "They will look on the one whom they have pierced."
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> After this, Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus (but secretly, because he
|
||||||
|
> feared the Jewish leaders), asked Pilate if he could remove the body of Jesus.
|
||||||
|
> Pilate gave him permission, so he went and took the body away. Nicodemus, the
|
||||||
|
> man who had previously come to Jesus at night, accompanied Joseph, carrying a
|
||||||
|
> mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about seventy-five pounds. Then they took
|
||||||
|
> Jesus' body and wrapped it, with the aromatic spices, in strips of linen cloth
|
||||||
|
> according to Jewish burial customs. Now at the place where Jesus was crucified
|
||||||
|
> there was a garden, and in the garden was a new tomb where no one had yet been
|
||||||
|
> buried. And so, because it was the Jewish day of preparation and the tomb was
|
||||||
|
> nearby, they placed Jesus' body there.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Several things stand out about this.[^12] For one, Jesus is now fulfilling all
|
||||||
|
kinds of prophecies. John is a great example of the later attempt to write Jesus
|
||||||
|
into the Jewish messiah. This is not part of the Gnostic teaching and was also
|
||||||
|
clearly not in Mark or other early documents. Only now does this become
|
||||||
|
necessary with the church spreading among and breaking away from the Jews.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Furthermore, Jesus now interacts with witnesses. He is finally in control. He
|
||||||
|
even comforts his mourning family. This doesn't look like a sacrifice at all
|
||||||
|
anymore. And we see one thing missing that changes the whole dynamic, that
|
||||||
|
betrays its Gnostic roots: God is absent. Read closely. Jesus does not pray, he
|
||||||
|
is not the Christ, he does not beg, does not bring the Kingdom. John's gospel is
|
||||||
|
not about a resurrection, but a transformation. Jesus frees the divine spirit
|
||||||
|
and breaks the cage of the flesh.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The crucifixion is the symbol of this transformation and is used in that light
|
||||||
|
by Paul who references his own death and resurrection. It stands not for an
|
||||||
|
overcoming of death. In no meaningful way does Jesus die; his body dies, but the
|
||||||
|
transformation continues independent of it, as we will see now. In stark
|
||||||
|
contrast to Mark, John continues after Jesus' death.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<div align="center"><object width="480" height="327"><param name="movie"
|
||||||
|
WWvalue="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xnryl?theme=none" /><param
|
||||||
|
name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess"
|
||||||
|
value="always" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480"
|
||||||
|
height="327" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xnryl?theme=none"
|
||||||
|
allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object></div>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Now very early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary
|
||||||
|
> Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been moved away from the
|
||||||
|
> entrance. So she went running to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus
|
||||||
|
> loved and told them, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t
|
||||||
|
> know where they have put him!" [...]
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> But Mary stood outside the tomb weeping. As she wept, she bent down and looked
|
||||||
|
> into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white sitting where Jesus' body had
|
||||||
|
> been lying, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why
|
||||||
|
> are you weeping?" Mary replied, "They have taken my Lord away, and I do not
|
||||||
|
> know where they have put him!" When she had said this, she turned around and
|
||||||
|
> saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?"
|
||||||
|
> Because she thought he was the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have
|
||||||
|
> carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will take him." Jesus
|
||||||
|
> said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "*Rabboni*"
|
||||||
|
> (which means Teacher). Jesus replied, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet
|
||||||
|
> ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my
|
||||||
|
> Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Mary Magdalene came and
|
||||||
|
> informed the disciples, "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them what Jesus
|
||||||
|
> had said to her.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It then goes on to fabricate a "tradition" of revelation. This kind of thing
|
||||||
|
becomes important for the growing church, but is of little concern to us.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
But this ascension is important. It is a purely spiritual experience of which
|
||||||
|
the bodily death is just a vivid metaphor. It is the central technique around
|
||||||
|
which the early church is built. The miracles are only there to finance it, the
|
||||||
|
prophecies to gain a greater audience, the morals to further its influence. But
|
||||||
|
the core is this accessible, graphic and guided mystical transformation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
But what *is* transformed? Now that is the real strength of the crucifixion.
|
||||||
|
*Everything*. *Anything*!
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
You see, it is a placeholder. It can take on the role of any mystic technique.
|
||||||
|
It is a universal metaphor. The Gnostic can see Sophia, the Theravadan can see
|
||||||
|
the [Arising and Passing
|
||||||
|
Away](http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away?p_r_p_185834411_title=The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away),
|
||||||
|
the new convert sees hope. What the crucifixion provides is a usable
|
||||||
|
interpretation for a wide variety of confusing experiences. Instead of having to
|
||||||
|
deal with the mind and the world as they really are, the crucifixion gives
|
||||||
|
security. The difficult part of the ongoing transformation has already been done
|
||||||
|
by someone else, the purpose is clear, the goal relatable. Overcoming death,
|
||||||
|
freeing the spirit, getting closer to God - pick whatever seems most attractive
|
||||||
|
to you. The Christ died for all of these, so have faith.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The crucifixion is a Rorschach blot of the psyche.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> I looked at the Rorschach blot. I tried to pretend it looked like a spreading
|
||||||
|
> tree, shadows pooled beneath it, but it didn't. It looked more like a dead cat
|
||||||
|
> I once found, the fat, glistening grubs writhing blindly, squirming over each
|
||||||
|
> other, frantically tunneling away from the light. But even that is avoiding
|
||||||
|
> the real horror. The horror is this: In the end, it is simply a picture of
|
||||||
|
> empty meaningless blackness. We are alone. There is nothing else.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> -- Dr. Malcolm Long, Watchmen
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
![](rorschach.jpg)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^1]:
|
||||||
|
[Robert M. Price](http://robertmprice.mindvendor.com), yada yada, Christ
|
||||||
|
myth proponents not convincing? Do you also believe in
|
||||||
|
[Oz](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDhDLOiXp7g)? If not, how about
|
||||||
|
Hercules? If you understand why they are myth, you will understand why
|
||||||
|
Christ is, too.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^2]:
|
||||||
|
A completely unjustified speculation: the Buddha stands out by being the
|
||||||
|
only one that breaks the pattern. He taught within a context that still
|
||||||
|
accepted general rebirth, so continuing the theme would be very obvious and
|
||||||
|
in fact, later Buddhists, particularly in the Mahayana tradition, did bring
|
||||||
|
it back by making Buddha an ascended god, or by inventing the idea of the
|
||||||
|
Bodhisattva, a being that intentionally ensures its own rebirth to help
|
||||||
|
others. But in the original story, Buddha was a mortal who distinguished
|
||||||
|
himself by *not* being reborn. He successfully extinguishes himself
|
||||||
|
after death and his disciples didn't doubt it. Why is this remarkable? It
|
||||||
|
would've happened during the transition to conscious minds, according to
|
||||||
|
Jaynes' theory. There would be lots of remnants around, lots of old ideas
|
||||||
|
colored by bicameral minds. What the Buddha did, maybe, was achieve full
|
||||||
|
subjective consciousness(, destroy his personal god called the self) and
|
||||||
|
teach it to his students, thus killing the dead voices. He wouldn't hang
|
||||||
|
around after death because he changed the minds of his followers, so he was
|
||||||
|
truly gone - [tathagata](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81gata). Later
|
||||||
|
students, already conscious, couldn't understand the remarkableness of this
|
||||||
|
feat anymore, so they retconned the Samsara story into it, maybe even
|
||||||
|
actually inverting it. Now the goal of enlightenment is to destroy the
|
||||||
|
linguistically constructed self and see the world "raw", non-subjectively. I
|
||||||
|
would strongly suspect that during this retcon, they invented the figure of
|
||||||
|
the Buddha, moved him closer to their time and assembled his story out of
|
||||||
|
ongoing myths. The "real" Buddha, the one that brought death to the world,
|
||||||
|
is almost certainly much older, dating back to maybe 1000BCE.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^3]:
|
||||||
|
Mark and Paul, of course, are likely not really Mark and Paul, but rather
|
||||||
|
anonymous texts attributed to the fictitious characters. Paul, at least, is
|
||||||
|
most likely based on a real person, in the same way that Jetpack Hitler
|
||||||
|
is.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^4]:
|
||||||
|
Always using the NET bible, as on [bible.org](http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^5]:
|
||||||
|
I find it fascinating that there is explicit mention of how fast Jesus died.
|
||||||
|
Also, his followers took his body right away. This gives some credence to
|
||||||
|
the idea that his death was faked. However, Jesus does not return in any
|
||||||
|
way. He might've successfully gone into hiding (or to India, as some
|
||||||
|
traditions have it), but that seems a bit too speculative to me. I don't
|
||||||
|
really see how you could fake a crucifixion, or why you would draw attention
|
||||||
|
to the fact afterwards. If Mark was in on the lie, he wouldn't have told us
|
||||||
|
about the preparations or the sudden death. It would look much more like
|
||||||
|
Luke.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^6]:
|
||||||
|
If you find my dismissal of Mark too harsh, try reading it yourself, but as
|
||||||
|
if it were new. Imagine we met at a friend's house and I introduce you to
|
||||||
|
some text I wrote. It's all true, I inform you. It's about my former
|
||||||
|
Japanese teacher, Takashi, but I wrote it in English for you, translating as
|
||||||
|
necessary. Try reading Mark that way, substituting Takashi for Jesus, Osaka
|
||||||
|
for Galilee, Suzuki the Monk for John the Baptist and so on. What would you
|
||||||
|
think about this Takashi? What is his message? Could you even decipher any?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^7]:
|
||||||
|
There is the idea that the New Testament is a (partial) parody. Some parts
|
||||||
|
of it might be, especially in Acts, but I don't buy it for Mark. It follows
|
||||||
|
well-known woo-woo con-men structures, has obvious editing mistakes and no
|
||||||
|
underlying plot. The text is partially manipulative, partially sincere, as
|
||||||
|
is typical for the genre. Compare with reports about Sai Baba or Osho, for
|
||||||
|
example.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^8]:
|
||||||
|
I'm eagerly awaiting Price' upcoming book, "The Amazing Colossal Apostle".
|
||||||
|
I'm certainly seeing the merit of rejecting all Pauline letters as authentic
|
||||||
|
already, but I'm not fully convinced yet. Also, I didn't want to make my
|
||||||
|
analysis contingent on it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^9]:
|
||||||
|
I'd love to know what exact practices Paul is talking about. I suspect
|
||||||
|
something akin to what modern Pentecostals are doing.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^10]:
|
||||||
|
Robert Price identifies Simon Magus as Paul. I haven't looked much into the
|
||||||
|
evidence for this yet, but it seems plausible to me.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^11]:
|
||||||
|
Funny thing is, about a millennium later, the same thing happened to
|
||||||
|
Christianity, too! The Reformation is nothing but an attempt to rationalize
|
||||||
|
Catholic dogma. This process continues to this very day, producing Christian
|
||||||
|
Atheism and Universalism (see Mencius Moldbug's glorious 5-part series [How
|
||||||
|
Dawkins got
|
||||||
|
pwned](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-5.html)
|
||||||
|
(link to part 5, which links to previous parts)). Or, as Jaynes said it:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> What happens in this modern dissolution of ecclesiastical authorization
|
||||||
|
> reminds us a little of what happened long ago after the breakdown of the
|
||||||
|
> bicameral mind itself. Everywhere in the contemporary world there are
|
||||||
|
> substitutes, other methods of authorization. Some are revivals of
|
||||||
|
> ancient ones: the popularity of possession religions in South America,
|
||||||
|
> where the church had once been so strong; extreme religious absolutism
|
||||||
|
> ego-based on "the Spirit", which is really the ascension of Paul over
|
||||||
|
> Jesus; an alarming rise in the serious acceptance of astrology, that
|
||||||
|
> direct heritage from the period of the breakdown of the bicameral mind in
|
||||||
|
> the Near East; or the more minor divination of the *I Ching*, also a
|
||||||
|
> direct heritage from the period just after the breakdown in China. There
|
||||||
|
> are also the huge commercial and sometimes psychological successes of
|
||||||
|
> various meditation procedures, sensitivity training groups, mind control,
|
||||||
|
> and group encounter practices. Other persuasions often seem like
|
||||||
|
> escapes from a new boredom of unbelief, but are also characterized by this
|
||||||
|
> search for authorization: faiths in various pseudosciences, as in
|
||||||
|
> scientology, or in unidentified flying objects bringing authority from
|
||||||
|
> other parts of our universe, or that gods were at one time actually such
|
||||||
|
> visitors; or the stubborn muddled fascination with extrasensory
|
||||||
|
> perception as a supposed demonstration of a spiritual surround of our
|
||||||
|
> lives whence some authorization might come; or the use of psychotropic
|
||||||
|
> drugs as ways of contacting profounder realities, as they were for most
|
||||||
|
> of the American native Indian civilizations in the breakdown of their
|
||||||
|
> bicameral mind. Just as we saw in [previous parts of the book] that the
|
||||||
|
> collapse of the institutionalized oracles resulted in smaller cults of
|
||||||
|
> induced possession, so the waning of institutional religions is resulting
|
||||||
|
> in these smaller, more private religions of every description. And this
|
||||||
|
> historical process can be expected to increase the rest of this century.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> [...]
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> Science then, for all its pomp of factness, is not unlike some of the
|
||||||
|
> more easily disparaged outbreaks of pseudoreligions. In this period of
|
||||||
|
> transition from its religious basis, science often shares with the
|
||||||
|
> celestial maps of astrology, or a hundred other irrationalisms, the same
|
||||||
|
> nostalgia for the Final Answer, the One Truth, the Single Cause. In the
|
||||||
|
> frustrations and sweat of laboratories, it feels the same temptations to
|
||||||
|
> swarm into sects, even as did the Khabiru refugees, and set out here and
|
||||||
|
> there through the dry Sinais of parched fact for some rich and brave
|
||||||
|
> significance flowing with truth and exaltation. And all of this, my
|
||||||
|
> metaphor and all, is a part of this transitional period after the
|
||||||
|
> breakdown of the bicameral mind.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^12]:
|
||||||
|
Also note that John is trying to provide plausible reasons why Jesus was
|
||||||
|
taken from the cross so early. Did somebody get accused of fakery, I
|
||||||
|
wonder?
|
|
@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ Reflections
|
||||||
![circle_logo](/circle_logo.jpg)
|
![circle_logo](/circle_logo.jpg)
|
||||||
The unobserved life is not worth living.
|
The unobserved life is not worth living.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- [On Purpose]
|
||||||
|
- [On The Crucifixion]
|
||||||
- [Gospel of Muflax]
|
- [Gospel of Muflax]
|
||||||
- [There Is Only Quale], a piece on dreams, memory and space ships
|
- [There Is Only Quale], a piece on dreams, memory and space ships
|
||||||
- a [Philosophical Survey]
|
- a [Philosophical Survey]
|
||||||
|
@ -13,8 +15,10 @@ The unobserved life is not worth living.
|
||||||
- my review of [Find the Bug]
|
- my review of [Find the Bug]
|
||||||
- a bit about [Nicknames]
|
- a bit about [Nicknames]
|
||||||
- a meditation on [Xmonad]
|
- a meditation on [Xmonad]
|
||||||
- [Why I love my SRS], or, How to hack your long-term memory
|
<--- [Why I love my SRS], or, How to hack your long-term memory-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[On The Crucifixion]: /reflections/crucifixion.html
|
||||||
|
[On Purpose]: /reflections/purpose.html
|
||||||
[Philosophical Survey]: /reflections/survey.html
|
[Philosophical Survey]: /reflections/survey.html
|
||||||
[Letting Go of Music]: /reflections/letting_go_of_music.html
|
[Letting Go of Music]: /reflections/letting_go_of_music.html
|
||||||
[Find the Bug]: /reflections/find_the_bug.html
|
[Find the Bug]: /reflections/find_the_bug.html
|
||||||
|
|
124
src/reflections/purpose.pdc
Normal file
124
src/reflections/purpose.pdc
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
|
||||||
|
% On Purpose
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Two reflections on purpose and two open questions.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Purpose cannot be created.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I'll just let [Alonzo Fyfe] speak for me.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> However, the common atheist response to the question of meaning and purpose in
|
||||||
|
> life is almost as absurd.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> This is the idea that each of us gets to choose our own meaning or purpose in
|
||||||
|
> life, and whatever we choose has real value.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> If we are talking about a person, and I have the ability to choose where that
|
||||||
|
> person was born, who its parents were, what it likes and dislikes, and what
|
||||||
|
> happened to him five years ago, this should be taken as a reliable sign that I
|
||||||
|
> am dealing with a *fictional* character. I do not have the liberty to make those
|
||||||
|
> types of decisions if we are talking about a real person. Instead, there is a
|
||||||
|
> fact of the matter.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> The same is true of assigning a purpose or meaning to life. If a person has
|
||||||
|
> the liberty to simply 'choose' a purpose or a meaning, then this should be
|
||||||
|
> taken as proof that he is creating a fictitious entity. This 'purpose' or
|
||||||
|
> 'meaning' is no more real than the character she invented for some story or
|
||||||
|
> book.
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> To live one's life as if this fictional purpose or meaning is real is to live
|
||||||
|
> a lie.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Desire is not about content.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Do desires exist? Has desire fulfillment value?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
According to [desirism], desire fulfillment itself has no value, but the
|
||||||
|
existence of desires creates value within the agent that has them. In other
|
||||||
|
words, if Bob wants to eat cheese, then eating cheese has value for Bob, but
|
||||||
|
only because this attitude exists in Bob's mind. The important assertion of
|
||||||
|
desirism is that desire fulfillment itself has no value, so it cannot be said
|
||||||
|
that it is good for Bob to want to eat cheese, nor that it is good *in general*
|
||||||
|
to eat cheese.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
(This has the implication that if there were only agents without desires, then
|
||||||
|
no value at all would exist. It is only for an accident of evolution that we
|
||||||
|
happen to have desires.)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Overall, this is not an esoteric claim. It follows quiet neatly from standard
|
||||||
|
scientific models. But is it true?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Think about wireheading. Why should I bother to fulfill a complex set of desires
|
||||||
|
if I'm also able to self-modify? I could simply replace all my desires with a
|
||||||
|
single trivial one, say "I desire 1+1 to equal 2". What would be the difference
|
||||||
|
in this case?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
How do you identify desires? How do you *know* if a desire fulfilled?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
One possibility might be that desire is about a state the world should be in.
|
||||||
|
Say, I might desire that every human has access to health care. But that seems
|
||||||
|
weak. For example, economics is full of "as if" models built just around this
|
||||||
|
assumption. A nice one is [rational addiction]. Regardless of their predictive
|
||||||
|
power, they tend to be very different from the way people actually think.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Or maybe we are talking about "reasons for action". Essentially, every moment
|
||||||
|
there are thousands of things we could do, but ultimately something compels us
|
||||||
|
to do a specific thing. This thing we might call a desire. But this again is
|
||||||
|
weak. For one, that would mean that desires are either in principle
|
||||||
|
unfulfillable (because they are only present when we act, but not when results
|
||||||
|
occur) or they are fulfilled through each action immediately. This again seems
|
||||||
|
false.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What we are really after is the sensation of fulfilling desires, not the actual
|
||||||
|
desire. Or in other words, utility is about mind-states, not world-states. This
|
||||||
|
becomes clear to anyone paying close attention to their mind upon the moment of
|
||||||
|
desire fulfillment. It is only[^1] this short moment of aggravation and
|
||||||
|
cessation-of-aggravation that matters, not the content of the desire.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A content-of-desire model of purpose therefore fails.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[^1]:
|
||||||
|
While trying to map this during vipassana, I noticed an additional stage
|
||||||
|
right before the aggravation. Sometimes for a short moment a glimpse of
|
||||||
|
"heaven" pops up, but the promise is never actually fulfilled. I haven't yet
|
||||||
|
mustered the necessary concentration to check if it always occurs.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**But why does this state of cessation exist in the first place?**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It seems so unnecessary. Agents with preferences would work just fine without
|
||||||
|
it. I can drop my free will, so to speak, yet still act and choose just fine. I
|
||||||
|
do lose my ability to make complex conscious decisions, but why the difference?
|
||||||
|
And why, if I don't drop it, do I have cessation-of-aggravation even for trivial
|
||||||
|
things?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**How does one act if there is no purpose?**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Maybe there really isn't any meaning to life. My brain is just broken, hoping to
|
||||||
|
find any. But then what? There seem to be only two responses to this question.
|
||||||
|
Either, "there's ultimate meaning, duh", but they all are very silly attempts of
|
||||||
|
what this meaning might be. Or, "get rid of the need to know". I utterly detest
|
||||||
|
this option. It is, maybe, the only thing I actually consider evil. If the only
|
||||||
|
alternative to suffering is "not looking for answers", then I prefer the
|
||||||
|
suffering. I'd rather not have this kind of "enlightenment", thank you very
|
||||||
|
much.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
But this doesn't seem right. I have a strong intuitive sense that there is
|
||||||
|
meaning and I'm just too stupid to figure it out. Maybe my intuition is
|
||||||
|
misleading me. Yet, I don't seem to be the only one. A sense of *fulfilling
|
||||||
|
fate* seems to be not too unusual.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Long ago, a Pentecostal pastor told me that I could keep on doubting, waiting
|
||||||
|
> till I had resolved all questions before I would be able to enter into worship
|
||||||
|
> with a clean conscience, but then that would probably mean I would never
|
||||||
|
> worship, because there would never be a way to settle all questions about God.
|
||||||
|
> I must simply decide (now) whether I was going to worship God. I see he was
|
||||||
|
> right. He would not have put it this way, but what I see in his sage advice
|
||||||
|
> was the realization that the two issues (of deciding what to think of "God" as
|
||||||
|
> an intellectual problem versus deciding whether to walk with God) belong to
|
||||||
|
> different language games, and that to solve one is not to solve the other.
|
||||||
|
> Thus, why wait to solve both before you can make headway on either one?
|
||||||
|
>
|
||||||
|
> -- [Robert M. Price](http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/zara/april__2007.htm)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[Alonozo Fyfe]: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/07/purpose-to-life-choosing-purpose.html
|
||||||
|
[desirism]: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982
|
||||||
|
[rational addiction]: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7873033/
|
BIN
src/reflections/rorschach.jpg
Normal file
BIN
src/reflections/rorschach.jpg
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
After Width: | Height: | Size: 188 KiB |
Loading…
Reference in a new issue