I read your little dialogue. You seem to confuse the soul with the
mind. Your argument could have run that the soul resides in the blood
(a fairly common belief among ancient peoples). The soul cannot be
injured. Your putzes could have easily have said that the soul had fled
the body, not been injured. To automatically assume that there is
nothing else is as fundamental of an error as the presupposition of
evangelical Christianity that they've got the monopoly on God.
Also, in your pledge of allegiance, you pledge to yourself and to
humanism. Which is it? Yourself or your fellow man/woman/other?
I have charged you with hedonism before, but you always claim that
is a valid path of enlightenment. That may very well be so, but it
doesn't appear that you indulge yourself for that purpose. You only
seem to have little willpower.
I do agree with your proposition that we cannot accept what others
tell us as truth. But to claim that there is nothing after death makes
life pointless. A vain rushing from here to there, for there will be
nothing tomorrow. I know that that is the core of your philosophy, but
why should we be kind to our fellow humans? There is nothing there to
call us to something higher. You can say that they have a fundamental
right to happiness and life. Why? If we have conscienceness(sp.) then
where did it come from? What is the origen of the pre-big-bang
protomatter? Your philosophy leaves much unanswered, but maybe that's
the way you like it. No hard questions. No hard answers. Just a
gentle apathy toward everything.
Eliott, The Prophet of the Dawn
the Doors **
Gustav Klimt **
Archives (Guestbook) **