Intergalactic Summit

Humanity desires truth, the search for which always supposes the exercise of authentic freedom. Many, without a doubt, would prefer to take the easy way out, trying to avoid this task. Some, ironically question the possibility of even knowing what truth is, claiming is incapable of knowing it or denying that there exists a truth valid for all. This attitude, as in the case of scepticism and relativism, changes hearts, making them cold, wavering, distant from others and closed. There is too many who wash their hands and let the water of history drain away without taking a stand.

On the other hand, there are those who wrongly interpret this search for the truth, leading them to irrationality and illusions; they close themselves up in “their truth”. Anyone who acts irrationally cannot become a disciple of the Lord. Faith and reason are necessary and complementary in the pursuit of truth. God created man with an innate vocation to the truth and he gave him reason for this purpose. Certainly, it is not irrationality but rather the yearning for truth which the Amarrian faith promotes. Furthermore, the truth which stands above humanity is an unavoidable condition for attaining freedom, since in it we discover the foundation of an ethics on which all can converge and which contains clear and precise indications concerning the inviolable dignity of the human person. This ethical patrimony can bring together different cultures, peoples, authorities, citizens among themselves, believers in God and non-believers. Amarr, in highlighting those values which sustain ethics proposes the Lord’s invitation to know the truth which sets us free. The believer is called to offer that truth to his contemporaries.

Therefore the government, which measured itself by the yardstick of common interest and not by truth itself, is no different from a well-organized band of robbers. The band of robbers, too, takes the common good of its band, independent of the good of others, as the standard of their freedom. Their concept of freedom was determined by the standards of their own will, and not the good in itself. A freedom guaranteed by its own will, but not by the good in itself, cannot be genuine human freedom. The true justice, which can truly be called the law of freedom, can then be not the good of individuals, but of the responsibility of humanity in itself.

"Freedom isn't free" The journey of liberation should be one of growth in responsibility. The growth of freedom, does not consist in simply demolishing the barriers to individual rights. Such a demolition only leads us to ever greater absurdities, culminating in the corruption of individual rights themselves. The growth of freedom consists in the growth of responsibility to others. It involves a constant and continual purification in the direction of truth. The journey to freedom is the purification of the individual and his institutions by accepting the truth of being.

Dear friends... do not hesitate to follow the Lord. He helps us to overcome our selfishness, to rise above our vain struggles and to conquer all that oppresses us. The one who does evil, who sins, becomes its slave and will never attain freedom. Only by renouncing hatred our blind hearts will we be free and a new life will well up in us.

None can love freedom truly, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence to corruption.

Gorda Hoje indicates quite another end for those that find absolute truth than the one you speak about, Cpt. Jormagdnir:



Mr. Hoje muses that absolute truth is a universal lie. You on the other hand indicate another way, the one of usurping heavens as the Sani Sabik try to since their very first days.

Both are flawed, the first by embracing a way that is certainly leading into nothingness, because it's prefering this ceratinty to the uncertainty of finding a higher truth and the difficulties one has to overcome on the way, difficulties that seem to be insurmountable. The second is striving for truth as a tool to tear down what my fellow Praetorin described as 'the barriers to individual rights', rightfully pointing out that such a demolition only leads to absurdities, like the idea that humans could shed their humanity and become gods in their own right. Truth, though, doesn't comform to the lust for power of individual humans.

As von Khan pointed out quite aptly, the strive for truth is necessarily intertwined with following the ethical imperative so that the one who truely knows will not "wield all the laws of the universe to [his] advantage and whim", for in doing so he would fail in knowing his responsibilities.

There is a third possibility, though. As the Scripture says "Only in God can we thrive and grow." - if you strive for truth you strive to be worthy to be taken back into God's embrace and to return to your source, to atone for the self-imposed seperation from the Lord, by bringing yourself to think, speak and act in conformity with his divine plan. As the Scripture says: "By His light, and His will." There you have eternal life, not as god nor as human, but as part of the only true God.

I have to agree with Ms. Farel's interpretation of the work. It seems to concern itself more with the search for truth rather than truth itself. For any academic or thinker, the search for absolute truth is their life's work. If one were to actually find and know absolute truth, the resulting ennui would no doubt be quite troubling.

You've more or less outlined the ultimate goals of transhumanism and futurists, dear Templar. Once one has learned absolute truth, the "theory of everything" if you will, one merely needs to act appropriately after that. The Amarr might call it "becoming one with God". The Minmatar might call it "ascending to be among the Spirits". Whatever religious or spiritual wrapper you want to put on it, the end-goal is the same: to know all and be able to do all. Religious individuals may cringe in horror at the thought of such a thing; would it not be usurping God's position in the grand design? Of course not, one could always argue that the Amarrian God exists in some sort of plane of existence superior to and above our own. Those filled with fear would wonder why anyone would want to achieve increasingly god-like knowledge and capabilities, questioning their motives. While for some, the lust for knowledge and power comes about in a desire to control and exploit others, for others (and myself, in particular) it is a desire driven merely by curiosity. I want to know more, constantly. It is an insatiable appetite. It is optimistic perhaps to hope that there is some sort of "barrier to entry" that allows only the good in nature to achieve such levels of knowledge and wisdom, a sort of "test of spirit" if you will. But realistically I am not so sure that such a thing would be the case along our path. The capsuleer class goes to prove that a choice few can rise above the majority of others when it comes to the man-made progression of the species' evolution; an unfortunate realization of this futurist dreamer.

Perhaps that was the root of Hoje's own pessimism, that if a particular sort of person found absolute truth it would doom us all. Perhaps your own religion has some credence in requiring certain criteria in order to be considered "enlightened". Would it really be enlightenment and absolute truth if everyone could do it while still hating and disagreeing with one another? Of course not. And so we're stuck here, for now, searching for that one speck of sand.

That is almost like the man personally offended you.

Is it? I certainly do not hold people who hide behind the nebulosity of their words in high regard and I admit: I have some dislike for them hiding like that. I also don't like if someone is delaying a choice uneccesarily or dragging out an action just not to face the consequences. Sometimes such a behavior is a sign of the person suffering from some disability. I think Mr. Hoje, though, does it premeditatedly, which clearly doesn't speak for his character in my opinon.

So I for sure dislike Mr. Hoje. But am I offended by him? By the Sefrim, no. The main contention I have is that he is wrong, not because he couldn't know better, but because he choose the security of perpetual 'search' because he was afraid of the consequences of searching to find, thus leading the entire reason for the search and such the searching itself ad absurdum.

I believe that the key when approaching issues such as this is to understand the difference between "the truth", the "perception of the truth" (or subjective truth if you prefer) and the "action".

Everybody has a subjective truth, and it can easily be achieved. This subjective truth may be true (as in, exact correspondence with reality) or may not be so, but it will still guide the actions of the person. The full truth, that is the understanding of reality itself, is far beyond the reach of mankind. God may know it (afterall, he created it), and a supposedly transcended human could, but this level of trascendence (be it metaphisical or scientifical via transhumanism) is unreachable in reality, as each new thing learned reveals another thing unknown behind it.

So, with our limited truths, we have to act. It doesn't matter how complete our truth is, even if we held the complete knowledge, it would only inform us of the consequences of our actions. The will, the morals and ethics, the social values... those are the ones that can make you choose one thing or another. Knowing the maximum amount of truth only makes your choices clearer, as you know their effects better, but you still have to choose.

Afterall, that's humanity there: choice. Every human has it, every one will be judged by how they use it.

So, to tie this all up a bit with the original post, truth won't set you free as the adage says. But it will give you the tools for it, should you have the will to accept your responsability in your own life.

I do not find that he is especially hiding behind his words. I am not really sure to understand where you got that idea.

Speaking of nebulous pieces of text, by the way, do not look further than a good chunk of the Scriptures core pieces. Dare tell me that there is a single interpretation possible out of them. Ah, maybe that the TC says so - and change their minds every decade according to the political necessities of the time. And five royal families applying their own interpretation of the one, single, only interpretation coming from the TC.

Are they hiding behind their words too ?

But back to the subject, you state that Hoje delays his choice and options like if it was some kind of unmovable truth. Nowhere is it written such a thing, only in your own, subjective interpretation, subjective truth.

Hoje mainly explains that the choice they already made, is to look for knowledge, little specks of sand. What you may have missed is that the choice was already made a long time ago. In my own interpretation, he merely describes what he chose nevertheless to face, and muses on where it might lead him.

Better to be prepared rather than jumping blindly into the unknown, even when your choice is made, right ? Weren't you saying in countless other topics that doubt and questionning were fundamental aspects of the Amarrian Faith ?

What Hoje exposes here is more of a honest, open - even if a little nebulous, indeed - questionning about his doubts. That is this actual nebulosity that I appreciate, when it is not about a mathematical treaty, but more of simple musings.



Maybe it is, maybe it is not.

What is truth? Hoje was not alone in dismissing this question as unanswerable, however he recognize the pursuit of truth by any means necessary only leads to corruption. Yet if man lives without truth, life passes him by; ultimately he surrenders the field to whoever is the stronger. Redemption in the fullest sense can only consist in the truth becoming recognizable. And it becomes recognizable when God becomes recognizable.

There is a divine truth that serves as a compass for good. Because of our limitations, life is suffering, how we conduct ourselves in the face of suffering is the real question. As we try to answer this dilemma we arrive to these conclusions;

Nothing you do means anything. You’ve got no responsibility, no purpose... Oblivion

The alternative is: everything you do matter. If you don’t follow your divine moral compass you tilt the world a little more sharply towards evil. It matters what you do, every choice impacts the world. Then you can have a meaningful life. It means responsibility. It means that the decisions you make are important.

Hoje's words