Wednesday, October 7, 2009

death is afraid of you

[This is my 69th post on this blog. Youpi.]

"death is afraid of you"
another (macro)minimalism
by antoine.

your life is a road you just
keep walking forward and
you can never look back
you just
keep walking forward
toward death and
death walks away as you
approach because
death is afraid of you.

the more confidence you
have in your stride
the more fear you will
instill and the faster
death will run away
from you because
death is afraid of you.

if you tell yourself
you are not afraid of death
but rather
death is afraid of you
he will hear you and
he will pick up
the pace and just
keep walking forward.

but sooner or later you
will begin to feel
as if you have
mistaken and you will
wonder what death has
in store and you will
fear him and he will
sense your fear he can
smell your fear he knows
when you let your
guard down and he will
turn around.

you can't help it it's just
in your nature everyone
has been taught that
death is to be feared.

sooner or later you
will do something you
feel is wrong and you
will want to undo it so
you will stop
dead in your
tracks and
stifle and
turn around.

you will try to walk
back to fix your mistakes
but when you turn around
you find nothing but
a mirror a reflection
of yourself blocking
your path and you will only
see your past self
fucking up and
it will hurt you.

you will try to
get back through you will
try to smash the mirror and
pound your fists against
the mirror and
kick and punch and
yell and scream at the mirror
but the mirror will not break
you can never go back
and you will cry
and you will wish you had
not fucked up
quite so bad.

this has happened
to you already.

as you remember
you can feel
the pain the stinging
the heartbreak.

and perhaps now
you turn around
again to wallow
in the misery
your memory the faulty
camera in your mind
but this is
when you let your
guard down and death
will know.

death is afraid of you
but when he feels
your fear death musters up
the courage to fight back.

death says i am
bigger than this and
he will turn around
and start walking
back toward you.

death will take
the opportunity when you are
crying silently
or gazing through
the mirror of your past
when you pause
eyes closed
head down
death hurries swiftly back
and ever so quietly
sneaks up behind you
and taps you on the back and
death will take
your misery away.

[Posted 12:52. That's 20 minutes. Not bad.]

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

the matrix of belief

subject: theism, gnosticism, pathy; and their antonyms
style: informative
source: Mark Twain

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

I have been wanting to write this post for a considerably long time, but for some reason I never got around to it. I touched on this subject two and a half years ago in Part Three of Rabies ... but I was very wrong back then, and my logic was all mixed up, so don't bother yourself to read it.

Today I will provide you with a much-needed clarification of the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. I have never heard anyone define the terms clearly as I am about to do, because the belief is so widespread that the two are under the same category.

Atheism and agnosticism are not under the same category. It is not a matter of atheist "or" agnostic. I am not claiming only that they have different meanings, but that the two terms are in fact two separate categories, which interlock. This is the fundamental concept that you must comprehend before you can even pretend to argue about this sort of thing.

"Theist" comes from the Greek root "theos," meaning "god."
"Gnostic" comes from the Greek root "gignosko," meaning "I know."
"Pathetic" comes from the Greek root "pathetikos," meaning "impassioned." (Don't worry too much about this for now; it will come into play later on.)
"A-" is a common prefix (likewise from the Greek), meaning "not" or "without."

Most people fall prey to the common misconception that there is a list of beliefs: [theist, atheist, agnostic], and that every person must fall under exactly one of these labels, one and only one. The problems with this view are that: it completely leaves out the essential fourth term "gnostic," and it ignores the fact that the structure of belief is not a list, but a matrix.

Consider the following cross-referencing table:

theistatheist
gnostic1. gnostic theist4. gnostic atheist
agnostic2. agnostic theist3. agnostic atheist

(These numbers will be referred to briefly later on, only for clarity.)

Using these terms as variables rather than sweeping end results, we can now clearly see a distinction among four separate schools of thought. Here we have a much more accurate and reasonable rule to go by: Every person must adhere to one term from each category; that is, one must be either theist or atheist, while at the same time either gnostic or agnostic.

Now we need to define these terms themselves so that the matrix above can be accepted and easily understood.

Theism vs. atheism: This category designates whether an individual believes or does not believe in the existence of a deity or deities. Note that this is the only category necessarily exclusive to religious belief.

Gnosticism vs. agnosticism: This category measures dogma, the level of conviction with which an individual believes he is correct. A gnostic claims to know for certain that his set of beliefs is the correct one, whereas an agnostic concedes that it is possible for his set of beliefs to be proven wrong by another, whether by logic and rational thinking or by pathos and persuasion. Note that this category could be used to quantify beliefs in a number of contexts, but "agnostic" has come to be used almost exclusively in a religious sense.

Pathy vs. apathy: By extension, a third category arises. This category quantifies the extent to which an individual cares about his beliefs, the degree to which he wants to persuade or convince other people to see the merit of his particular set of beliefs.

The introduction of this third category to the system establishes eight distinct categories of religious belief:

patheticapathetic
1.1a. pathetic gnostic theist1b. apathetic gnostic theist
2.2a. pathetic agnostic theist2b. apathetic agnostic theist
3.3a. pathetic agnostic atheist3b. apathetic agnostic atheist
4.4a. pathetic gnostic atheist4b. apathetic gnostic atheist

Obviously, none of these dichotomies are absolute. An individual can be in the middle of the road on any of these categories; but it is important to note that, just as with any binary system, no individual can be entirely ambivalent, and he must lean (however slightly) toward one side or the other.

To summarize, in layman's terms:
(A)theism is what you believe.
(A)gnosticism is what you know.
(A)pathy is how much you care.

And now I ask of you, which of these eight labels most closely fits your own beliefs ?

I am 3a ... :D

[The opinion segment:]

Agnosticism, to me, is common sense. No matter what you believe, and no matter what evidence (or who knows what else) you have to back it up, if you have common sense and are a reasonable human being, you have to admit that you would surrender your beliefs if an alternative school of thought arises that carries more evidence or more closely matches your spiritual needs.

Gnosticism, on the other hand, is hubris: an unfortunate flaw of the human mind, which can in fact grow to be extremely dangerous to the mental well-being of oneself and of others.

If you are confused about which is better, between theism and atheism, consider watching NonStampCollector on YouTube. He is sure to be able to clear things up for you, and I cannot recommend his videos enough. They are earnest, intellectual, considerate, and incredibly enlightening.

Pathy versus apathy is a matter of personal preference. You either care or you don't; I can't blame you either way. Nobody can rightfully tell you whether or not you should care about something.

[Posted at 9:22]

Thursday, October 1, 2009

back into action. ?

With Air Heads, Hawaiian Punch, and Imogen Heap as my fuel, I return finally (after at least a month of writing drought and feeling terrible about it) to Rainbeast. Most of you (all but one, in fact) do not know what this is. No worries, you will know by next year. For now, I just need to take action already.

That is, if I can find it ... I know it is buried somewhere in these stockpiles of thought-become-ink.

While you're here, check out NonStampCollector on YouTube. A recent and pleasing find of mine. www.youtube.com/nonstampcollector, that is. Go ahead, you deserve it.

p.s. Until recently, I'd only heard a live version of "I Am in Love with You," only I didn't know it was live, and now that I've heard the album version, it just doesn't sound right. I'm used to the wrongness. What, sound familiar ? Strange ...

p.p.s. What the Hel. Today is not September 31st. I was no less fooled by this notion than I was three years ago. Crazy. Honestly, though ... I have been reminding myself for the past two weeks that I need to finish scene four of Timepiece, and for the latter half of said timespan I had semi-convinced myself that I would get back to it on the 31st. Well, guess what, creative spirit ? There is no 31st. Do you still want me to get on it ?