There are quite a few reasons why people may resolve to not enter partnership, temporarily or permanently, with respect to one concrete or all potential partners. One reason is that somebody might find he or she is not the type of person who finds satisfaction in partnership, marriage and family life. Another typical reason is voluntary celibacy, for a time or life-long, in the sense of “giving priority to one’s relationship to God”. Staying away from partnership however does not mean to be alone, or to be confined to same-gender friendships only. Cross-gender friendship is possible, but it’s not easy to stay away from flirting and partnership. Here are some thoughts that might help:

  1. Avoid exclusivity. Marriage adds uniqueness (of relationship character) to a friendship, i.e. marriage is friendship plus exclusivity, and that’s it. This exclusivity is rooted in the exclusive character of sexual intercourse. Therefore, in a cross-gender friendship, avoid exclusivity of social intercourse to stay friends. You do so practically by having multiple cross-gender friendships of comparable quality, i.e. by not allowing one to be your “special
    friendship”.
  2. Have common friends. So the typical setting is a group of friends coming together. This avoids the friendship to be mainly of one-to-one character, as this would shift it into proximity of partnership.
  3. Don’t set goals for the relationship. Friendship is something “superficial” in the sense that friendship can never be a goal to reach, it is in all cases a later conceptualization of a pre-existing relationship quality that developed unconsciously. A friendship is what it is and develops as it does, without designs and plans and pre-defined directions. If one however sets a goal (like: reaching absolute trust) one formalizes (or: reifies) the relationship, giving it way too much importance. One could even define: partnership is a reified friendship. For example, agreeing on a binding character implies a formalization (“reification”) of the relationship. Which is the reason why engagement and marriage transform friendships to partnerships. Even talking about the friendship and even thinking about it too much implies a reification and therefore shifts it into the direction of partnership.
    Lovers talk about their relationship, but friends are just friends. There is no such thing as “friendship” to talk about!
  4. Don’t speak about the relationship. People think that, in good friendships, one can talk about everything. And they mean everything. This is true, with one exception: in a cross-gender friendship, don’t talk about your
    friendship, if you want it to stay a friendship. The reason is: cross-gender friendships are “latently extendable” , i.e. friends might become couples. If you don’t want this, don’t talk about this or the relationship gets instantly a
    “flirty touch”. This is even more obvious when you talk about the possibility of entering partnership – regardless whether you say that you do or don’t want this, you find yourself in the middle of flirting and relaxed friendship has gone. Friends are friends, but partners agree to be partners. Agreeing to be friends is an oxymoron.
  5. Use talk for purposes, not for one another. Lovers are important to one another foremost as persons (cf. also your bible: I Cor 7:33-34), while friends are important to one another foremost as partakers to fulfill a common purpose. So lovers talk to get to know one another, and friends talk about a common purpose (and alongside, get to know each other better). To stay friends, talk like friends do.
  6. Have a common orientation that’s not your relationship. Whereever one enjoys a social relationship, concentrating on one another seems a very obvious and promising idea. Just, it shifts a relationship from friendship to flirt and partnership. So in cross-gender friendships one needs something outward to jointly concentrate on. Proper alternatives must be interesting, meaningful and promising. It can be a goal for third persons or a group of persons. It cannot be a personal problem of one of the two friends: while it’s fully o.k. to help each other in these, they cannot serve as the relationship’s focus, as it is equivalent to focus on each other as
    persons.
  7. Act thoughtlessly. Too much thinking blocks cross-gender friendships, as centering attention on thefriendship itself rather than an outward goal shifts it in proximity of partnership. So it’s better to act in such a friendship without much thoughtwork, even if this produces some added errors and hurts. But it really is better that way: errors and hurts are correctable, while otherwise the whole friendship is at stake. Acting “thoughtless” implies to talk about personal experiences and problems naturally, without thinking previously about the possible effects on the relationship.
  8. Accept the non-binding, non-exclusive character of friendship. Friendship and partnership are distinguished by the non-binding resp. binding character of relationship. Both has its upsides and downsides, and
    first of all, you need to know what you want. Then, if you want friendship, get accust omed to the thought that your cross-gender friendship might cease or practically end, e.g. by moving to another place. Preparing for the potential end of the friendship implies to use “redundancy”: you need to have multiple friendships of comparable quality (i.e. also, multiple cross-gender friendships). Then you are mentally able to let go; while you’d stick to a single cross-gender friendship way too much, making it practically a binding friendship, that is, (pseudo-)partnership.
  9. Assume that your friend can live alone. A friendship is a latently transient relationship, so do not make it a binding, undissolvable one by assuming or producing dependence, or by showing or accepting possessiveness.
  10. Train a kind of friendship that won’t be affected by one friend entering partnership. You train this by training your character: train to be not overfocused on your later spouse, but get accustomed to the thought of having friendships in parallel to your marriage. In case of cross-gender friendships, the relationship should be with the couple as a whole, of course, to prevent mistrust. Especially women have problems to continue other relationships in parallel to a partnership, in many cases ending all friendships in favour of a newly started partnership, entering a degree of dependence that’s not healthy in all cases.
  11. Utilize oppositeness of lifestyle and character. Cross-gender friendships get easier if the friends have lifestyles and characters which are incompatible in a partnership setting. That is, lifestyle and character should be so different that none of both can imagine to live together all life long 24 hours a day. While both enjoy the temporal community of friendship, of course. Such circumstances foster great relaxedness in dealing with each other: something that would be explicit flirting in other circumstances is now just kindness

 


Start date: 2007-08-09
Post date: 2007-11-04
Version date: 2007-11-04 (for last meaningful change)

In Protestant churches, confirmation
is (hopefully) when young believers are taught arguments and reasons
that confirm and strengthen their faith. In my life, conformation is
when Jesus confirms my faith by contemporary activity. Let me explain
how I currently view faith, the basis of faith and my faith.

Content vs. confirmation

Do Christians believe in miracles? No, we believe in Christ.
Miracles only confirm our beliefs about Christ. Because that’s how it
was in Mark’s last verse:

And they went out and preached
everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message
by accompanying signs.
[Mark
16:20 ESV
]

The people who heard the apostles preach were expected to believe
the content they heard … maybe because of the miracles they saw, but
in any way believing was about the content the apostles told them.
Miracles without this content would be astonishing, but we’d remain
curious. Paul also makes this connection between hearing the content
(the good message about Jesus the Christ) and believing:

So people believe because they hear. They hear because people tell
them about Christ.
[Romans
10:17 BWE
]

Note that this translation is correct (IMHO): “δια ρηματος θεου”
(“through the word of God”, or “Christ”, in some mss.) can be
translated with a genitivus obiectivus. So nobody says anything about
metaphyically quasi-magically supernaturally active “word of God”
(probably the bible, one’d suppose …) which “generates” faith, as one
might understand from this translation:

 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God.
[Romans
10:17 KJV
]

And the Greek “ακοη” means the “hearing”, not the “preaching” as
others translate. As only this fits the context: the next verse starts
with “But I ask, have they not heard?” [Romans
10:18 BWE
].

History-based unconfirmed faith

So people believe because people tell them about Christ … which
has to be understood, in the context of the first century, as the
“historic Christ”. People told each other about the man Jesus the
Nacarene who proved to be the Christ, the son of God, by the historic
fact of his resurrection. This kind of history was and is a valuable
basis for faith in Christ Jesus. It is, currently, the basis of my
personal faith: I believe in the historic content about Jesus, and I
can argue (though not prove) that what I believe is truly historic. So
it’s possible, meaningful and justifiable for me to believe in Christ
without contemporary signs and miracles. Past events, signs and
miracles are enough because the biblical tradition is reliable.

However, such a faith is “unconfirmed” by contemporary experiences!
Wherefore I said, I need my confirmation yet. At least part of my
remaining life is dedicated to search for such confirmation. I call
this search the “Second Acts” project. Currently, I’m kinda satisfied
with this kinda faith, as “history-based unconfirmed faith” as a
rational preliminary faith, a “working hypothesis faith” waiting for
miracles that prove it, has multiple advantages over other kinds of
faith:

  • With a preliminary faith, I am allowed to admit that my faith is
    not yet proven beyond all doubt, while others who think believing is
    the “activity of being absolutely sure” must force themselves to think:
    • either, that history proves Jesus to be the Christ with
      mathematical exactness (which simply isn’t the case for any historical
      proof)
    • or, that they have found contemporary signs and miracles (which
      might be the case, compromise the standards for detecting true
      miracles, or lead to despair if it isn’t the case)
  • A history based, miracle-confirmable faith attributes the
    biblical priorities to both the message about Jesus, and to signs and
    miracles.
  • With a history-based faith you can bluntly admit that your
    present situation might be one where God simply does not do anything.
    It does not hurt your faith that Jesus lives, as you believe from history that Jesus resurrected.

Start date: 2007-11-02
Post date: 2007-11-03
Version date: 2007-11-03 (for last meaningful change)

My recent article “Wherefore
do we spend our breath?
” elaborated somewhat on the idea of
creating immortality by part-by-part exchange of the whole body,
including digitization of the brain. It was argued that identity and
even subjective, “perceived” identity would outlive this process. These
speculations brought me to some further speculations. Note that this
stuff does not represent my “new belief system”, it’s just a set of
experiments to detect and throw away some naive conceptions, in this
case conceptions of immortality and identity.

Demystification of the “identity” concept

The naive human conception of our own “identity” is probably thus:
In essence, I am a spiritual, atomic entity. My body is only the shell,
but the real “me” consists of spiritual matter. Because I am an atomic
entity, I am undividable, therefore also undestroyable, and therefore
of eternal existence. At least mine conception is (was?) that way when
you allow me to exaggerate somewhat.

However, let’s take a closer look. This naive, “intuitive”
conception is highly mystical as it postulates “spiritual matter” which
is orthogonal to human perception. It is a more economical explanation
to view “identity” as a learned concept:

  • There’s nothing mystical about the fact that we can perceive our
    own identity. Biologists explain this as learning from the experience
    that there is a body/world separation. So the concept of “I” can
    develop by learning.
  • Probably, we learned from experience and contemplation the
    following concept: a person can claim to have an “identity” because it
    acquired its identity in a process which is unique world-wide. The
    start was the inseminated ovum, carrying unique genetic substance that
    resulted from a non-deterministic merge of chromosomes. Then, the
    person was born as a baby and travelled its unique world line through
    4-dimensional spacetime, experiencing its unique collection of
    situations. So, our learned concept of identity is coupled to
    uniqueness and “having a history”. Therfore, we would not assign the
    same identity to an atom-by-atom copy of a person, as it has no
    history. But as soon as such a copy starts living, it starts to differ
    from its original, and step by step acquires its own identity.
  • The way we learned it, identity is not coupled to our continuous
    awareness of self: we think that a human being has the same identity
    after a sleep, though there was no continued perception of
    identity or body. Especially here it becomes apparent that “identity”
    is no metaphysically pre-defined “thing” but a self-defined concept,
    just as it seems meaningful to people.
  • The way we learned it, identity is coupled to the possibiility to
    exploit and extend the aquired set of memories, bodily abilities,
    characteristics, qualifications etc. that are called together a
    “person”.
  • The way we learned it, identity is coupled to “uniqueness”, i.e.
    identity is not “by
    our own virtue”, as, without a world that allows different situations
    there would be no different people, i.e. no identities.

Seeing identity as a “learned concept” seems to work: it’s just an
unproven thought experiment but it deeply questions the naive
conception of “identity by being an atomic spiritual entity”

Demystification of the “resurrection” concept

What exactly do we search when longing for “eternal life”? We cannot
reasonably expect the uninterrupted existence of our human body here on
earth, seing the many people who died and do no longer reside here on
earth. So what we expect is not to preserve the body we have now, but
to preserve our identity in the sense of: our unique set of abilities
and experiences (see above). This includes bodily abilities but is far
from limited to that. Here is a natural science based explanation why
this identity does not die the moment the body dies. For this argument,
the following assumptions are made:

  • The spirit is not made of “spiritual substance” but implemented
    by using the material substance of the body.
  • The body is radically mortal.
  • Material substance
    is interchangeable, i.e. atoms have no own identity.
  • Identity is an emergence
    made up of a complex system
    of many parts.
  • Sleep and coma do not destroy identity, i.e. identity is not
    defined via perpetual awareness of self.

With these assumptions in mind and judged by our perception of self
/ identity, there is no difference between one night’s sleep and one
night’s sleep which is interrupted by a 1000 years period of
non-existence. The resurrected man would perceive his identity just the
same way as the man who just slept – because there is no difference
between their bodies, so no possibility to detect a difference. Of
course, this needs a being who knows atom-by-atom how to re-create a no
longer existing  body.

That means: resurrection of a radically mortal body with a spirit
and soul which is implemented in the body is possible if only we know
how to re-create the body, esp. including the brain and all its
content. So death and resurrection does not destroy our identity, not
even our perception of our own identity.

Above, identity was identified as a “learned concept”, and
resurrection just adds another lesson: we have to learn / add to our
definition of identity that identity is not destroyed by a time of
bodily non-existence. During that time, a person exists just as a
non-living informational representation, one might say “in the
knowledge of God”. If God would forget a person, this would be
annihilation.

So the traditional concepts of “resurrection of the body” seem to be
overthrowable. For eternal life, no spirit made of “spiritual
substance” is necessary, and no  re-collection of the atoms we
were once made of. The same identity is re-created with other
substance, including continued perception of our identity.

The interesting thing here is the finding that our very identity is
“informationally representable” (i.e. abstractable from matter).
Because of that, it is “informationally transferable” from
one body to another. So because identity is abstractable, it is
resurrectable.

Implications for inventing eternal life on earth

If these ideas of identities and resurrection are correct, this
would mean for the natural implementation of eternal life: full
digitization of the brain content and exact description of the body
attributes are enough to “resurrect” a person lateron (e.g. after
the technology to create and program empty brains has been developed).

So one would have to develop the “brain digitization technology”
first; with it,
people could be “archived” and resurrected when it becomes technically
possible. Archiving people would even be possible if the brain’s
content is not yet understood, as interpreting this could be developed
later. One would just have to archive a large matrix that stores store
all the
connections between the neve cells, and the “activation thresholds” of
each connection within this neural network. This would best be done
immediately after death by a
machine that digitizes the brain slice by slice (the brain is destroyed
during that process, but that does not matter here).

Another idea would
be to preserve the brain itself until the digitization technology and
“resurrection technology” is fully developed. This is the easiest
solution: it needs nothing more than non-destroying preservation of a
materially implemented neural network. Perhaps in fluid nitrogen?

However, you need to trust in people who live after you that they
will resurrect you when it becomes technically possible. These people
however might be selfish, or they’re just opposed to the opinions you
had while alive, or they think it’s just too expensive to resurrect
you, or the world is near to over-population (as always), or somebody
argues that there’s no reason to resurrect you as you cannot even be
sad if they save the effort … you’re dead, after all. You see the
problem. Personally, I’d really prefer to trust in a faithful God to resurrect
me rather than in us people. 😉


Start date: 2007-10-21
Post date: 2007-10-23
Version date: 2007-10-23 (for last meaningful change)

Well folks, I need to communicate better. For years, I want some
sort of people to understand and accept some elements of my lifestyle,
but was not successful. They even cannot see what I’m talking about, or
what might be the sense. So I need to communicate better, and will
train this in this post somewhat. For example, I want people to
understand my “technical approach” to many (not all) problems in life.
So, what is the technical approach, communicated in a way that
non-technical people will understand, and so that they get a chance to
accept what is said.

The technical approach is whenever things are esteemed more
important than people. But this is always for a limited time, and only
because people decided beforehand that it should be that way.
For example, whereever people decide that they want to have / build /
create / modify something, the technical approach is about
getting this done the most efficient way. At times, the practical
execution of this approach might seem extreme and strange to socially
minded people; so it’s important for tham to keep in mind that it’s
just about what people wanted.

Doing things the technical way exhibits some common characteristics:

  • You must be interested how things work, not just how you can deal
    with people.
  • While in the technical area, people have to adapt to technology
    and, at times, obey technology. For example, to extend a software
    system, you need to use the programming language it was written in, not
    the one you are enthusiastic about.
  • When interfacing with technology, it is best to work without
    emotions, “mechanically”, just like the technology itself. For example,
    nothing gets better if you get impatient with technology and throw it
    against the wall. Likewise, fear of destroying something blocks you
    from learning more about technology.
  • At times, even the interfacing between people should be done in a
    “technical way”, without emotions and typical expressions of humanity.
    To get things done, it is in most cases the most efficient way if you
    behave as technology would. For example, military forces use a special
    “command language” to communicate with each other in a tank and between
    tanks over radio systems. Here, it is prescribed what words to use for
    what purpose, and misunderstandings are greatly limited that way.
    Abstractly, this expresses that the “thing” of gaining victory in a
    fight is more important than the people who are involved in it.
  • You must judge problems the technical way. When dealing with
    people, the importance of (social) problems is measured by each one’s
    subjective measure, and then it is negotiated what is to be done. When
    dealing with technology, the importance of (technical) problems has to
    be measured by objective, technical measures: according to its effects
    on technology.

Start date: 2007-10-19
Post date: 2007-10-20
Version date: 2007-10-20 (for last meaningful change)

Don’t pal up with the last reality

When taking an honest approach to life, one must take the most
important problem to be most important. One must face reality. So, what
is the most important problem of man? It’s the last reality: death. It
renders all nothing, destroys what you made of you, ignores what was
dear to you. So foremost, we must face and fight death.

But people seem to have come to terms with death. They accept that
death will destroy them sooner or later. While death accepts that
people ignore it until it catches them. People don’t talk about death.
People don’t talk about diseases, they talk about health. Politicians
who try to cope with diseases work in the “Department of Health”, not
the “Department of Diseases”. People take out a life assurance, not a
death assurance, but it pays only in case of death, not life.

An honest approach to life however forbids to accept death while
concentrating on minor problems. There is absolutely nothing to say
against investing your whole life into overcoming death. One might
sacrifice career, money, health, partnership, social insurances and
everything else in order to find dependable assurance of eternal
life. If there is no eternal life at all, the state of such a man after
death is as miserable as career people’s, even so far as both cannot
hear neither contempt nor admiration. But if there is any sort of
eternal existence, it’s surely a good idea to invest all of one’s
breath therein.

Again: you guys are not allowed to blame me for freaking out now,
totally and outrageously, out of this damned average death-integrating
lifestyle. As it is in order to find out for all of us how to arrive at
eternal life. In
the sense of something to really hope for, something that you expect
and then it happens. Not in the sense of a
religious pacifier.

I will no present some weird thoughts about “inventing eternal life”
on this earth. Please do not interpret this as being disbelief, but
it’s an awfull, absolute,
weird, most extreme, ultimate determinedness to get around death. For
all of lifes sake. Because this is the foremost problem of men and
people simply don’t care. I could screeeeeeeam! People work, highly
motivated, for vain
stuff and then die, and accept it that way. Why don’t people try
instead to get eternal life????? Is there so little logic in
people????? Obviously.

Eternal life by digitization, including uninterrupted existence

On 2006-11-04, I had some interesting insights about human identity
(see my invention
list
), and, building on top of these, a natural implementation of
eternal life seems possible even though medicine found no way to make
the human body immortal. First, the basic thoughts:

What people search is perceived immortality. Therefore, an identical
but younger copy of a person would not prolong this person’s life. Even
if all memories and experiences could be copied. Because, people would
not feel to live eternally that way. In human perception, these two
persons would have their own identity each because they could start to
live contemporaneously but differently (e.g. in different places). So,
an idea is needed how to prolong the life of one person, while
upholding its self-perceived identity.

For this idea, we need to know what “self-perceived identity” is. It
is the awareness of the self, the feeling to be somebody, the awareness
of one’s own body. With this definition, identity is an emergence of all
parts of the body. No part of the body generates the feeling to be a
human body, but together they do, as together they make
self-observation possible.

The inspiring factum is this: exchanging one part of the body (like
by an organ transplant) disturbs “perceived identity” but does not
destroy it. After some time, the new part of the body is integrated
into the emergence of identity. This is due to two effects: it learned
form the other parts of the body to behave according to the identity
which is outweighingly defined by them; and, it influenced the other
parts of the body and thus, the identity, while the perception that
identity stayed basically the same has been uphold. If identity changes
slow enough, it is perceived to stay the same.

This results in the following idea: by exchanging all parts of the
body, one after the other, the body of somebody can be exchanged by a
different body while the identity stays the same. This would include
exchanging the brain, part by part. At least here, very difficult
technical problems could arise: how to create “empty” brains, and how
to “program” them. So it might be better here to exchange the brain by
a functionally equivalent computer. The digitization of the most
important part of a human identity would make it possible to create
“backups” of people. So if a body is crushed in an accident, the
“software” would be restored to an empty brain in a new (comparable)
body, and this human being could start to live further, starting with
the last backup, i.e. with an amnesia of perhaps 1-2 weeks and like
waking from a deep sleep of that length. Sleep and amnesia do not
destroy the self-perceived identity, and this process would not either.

How Christ will qualify as an even better hope

I’m not going to end this post here, as the above mentioned
invention is not my present approach to overcome the problem of
morbidity. I hope however that I would consequently follow after it if
I wouldn’t believe that eternal life is the free gift of Jesus the
Christ, as I do. But I do believe this. I presented the above
“alternative hope” to stir up us believers: everybody would agree that
one should invest into the most promising alternative. Which means we
must explain: why is eternal life from Christ a better hope than the
above mentioned invention of eternal life by digitization? If we cannot
explain this even in the long run, it would be better for all of us to
become scientists and work towards our own digitization. Imagine, 200+
millions of scientists … .

So I am deeply determined to arrive at an explanation here. Tell me
the reason why the Christian hope is better, or join me in
searching for that reason. I call this search the search for “Second
Acts”. Here’s a quick list of some basic approaches, please extend it
where necessary:

  • Document supernatural phenomena with rigid scientific methodology.
  • Document the influence of the “name” on supernatural phenomena,
    check if it is a valid theory to assume name-based dependencies to
    supernatural entities.
  • Document the supernatural phenomena that happen “in the name of
    Jesus the Christ”.
  • Does the collected data confirm that Jesus is the Christ and that
    he’ll save believers as he promised to?

To conclude: I would so much appreciate this desire for life to spread
all over this
society and this world. It is: loving life more than even your own
pride. As
you might need to let loose your pride in order to get eternal life,
e.g. if eternal life is available by Jesus the Christ only.


Start date: 2007-10-19
Post date: 2007-10-20
Version date: 2007-10-20 (for last meaningful change)

Information science developed a good understanding of what
information is: a coded representation of something different, not the
thing itself. And, information science includes a rich use of names:
names are used for coding the informational representation of entities.
Also, we know about the problems that come with using names, for
example, the possibility of identity theft, or any other sort of
misinformation. This givesn an interesting background to a part of the
well-known “ten commandments”.
Depending on how
one numbers the decalogue
, the second resp. third one reads thus:

“You shall not take the name of the LORD
your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him
guiltless who takes his name in vain.”
[The
Bible, Exodus 20:7 ESV
]

Often, people seem to think it prohibits exclaiming “Oh my God!” in
everyday situations. But is it really about that? I now think that this
is directed against “false prophets” and other people who’d hijack the
name Yahweh for
their purposes, which is the name of the God who gave the ten
commandments. So the intended result of this commandment is to prevent
misinformation about God. Which is especially important, as God is
invisible (as an entity, and mostly his acts are invisible, too). So he
is represented in this visible world by information only. This
information is especially exposed to hijacking attacks, back then and
today, as using the name of God promises to have authority over
believers. All this stuff that has been done “in the name of God”, from
the middle age crusades to today’s gay marriages, carries
misinformation about God. No wonder that people are confused today who
God is, what God wants and what he does. We need more clarity here:
only authentic divine things must carry the name of God! Whereever God
is written upon, God must be inside, so to speak. Or this confusion
will never end. Part of this is to check what proposed miracles are
authentic miracles of God, and what are faked miracles “in the name of
God”, as it is sad to see God’s acts discredited by the mix-up with so
much human-generated fake which claims to be done in the same “name”.


Start date: 2007-10-16
Post date: 2007-10-16
Version date: 2007-10-16 (for last meaningful change)

It’s juts like in a haywire company where everything is like
hey-go-mad. Say, some stuff rolls out of a high-level rack and strikes
somebody dead. Now, who is responsible, who has to bear the blame for
this industrial accident? The safety representative of the company? The
staff manager who hired a underqualified person for that position? The
chief executive officer who does not care for anything except pressing
more private income out of that company? The cleaning lady who saw the
insecurely positioned stuff the evening before in the rack but was too
lazy to try reaching somebody who could change this? The organizational
design people who were not interested in setting up a functioning
information infrastructure so that it would’ve been no effort for the
cleaning lady to place her information? The workman who died in this
accident together with his warehouseman colleagues, as they had been
lazy and careless for years, never encouraging each other to better
care for safety and improvement of work process?

On 2007-10-05, I did chat with a friend of mine via ICQ. We came to
talk about personal and nearby experiences of injustice and suffering,
and he askes: where is the justice of the God. Which is the theodicy question,
actually. The above comparison is what I currently think about that,
and told him. Of course it is “unjust” that this one workman died, as
he is not to be charged more than others for the chaos that caused his
death. Chaos is a place where stuff happens without a perceivable
particular reason, that is, it’s a place where injustice happens. This
world is just like such a chaos factory. It’s full of injustice and
things that “nobody wants” because it’s full of chaos. And who is in
charge of the chaos? No particular person, but all of us. Humankind, as
an entity, and everybody, as an individual. Humankind turned away from
God collectively, and that way marooned itself, wanting to live on its
own, an impossible task that resulted in the present chaos. Another
interesting observartion from the “factory analogy” is that no single
person could correct the chaos, but humankind could. It’s a social
phenomenon. All of us (as individuals) have a share in being
responsible for the chaos, and therefore an obligation to change our
way of life (to “repent”). But an individual’s repentance does not
change anything meaningful in this chaotic world, it just removes one
more impediment for order. Our chaos is a social phenomenon: no single
human being created it, and no single human being is able to correct
it. Seeing that makes it less frustrating if we see no result of our
anti-world-chaos lifestyle … such people are, if rare, “only” light
on chaos, not order.


Start date: 2007-10-16
Post date: 2007-10-16
Version date: 2007-10-16 (for last meaningful change)