Intergalactic Summit

And then you looked in the mirror and saw a baleful, viperous Minmatar?

"But I'm not baleful or viperous"

Right, and neither are trillions of people you paint with a broad brush.

They are the same as you, minus the brainwashing.

Remind me what, exactly, the condition for receiving the Eternal Reward in Amarr is? Worship and serve God and devote your life and works to Him. The entire point of Amarr and of the Reclaiming is that those who do not accept this deity's yoke are either heretics or heathens and are thus either doomed and in need of saving. The sole condition for being rewarded in their mythology is to be a sycophant to their god. You can be the most wonderful human being who ever lived, bring a smile to every face you ever meet, brighten every life you touch, single-handedly usher in a golden age of wonder and prosperity, but if you're not one of the Faithful, you're a Heathen. Because the only thing that matters to Amarr is worship.



The economics of competition. Survive and thrive, or die. Sell a better product, make a better argument, have the more accurate theory, fly the better starship, shoot straighter, think faster, lift stronger, see clearer. Pick your corner, defend it so long as it's tenable, out-perform the competition so long as it's possible, adapt and move on when it is not. There's no norm involved, just results.



Spoken like somebody who's never bothered to examine Amarrian Theology for herself with a genuinely open mind and see what it's really all about. I took no instruction on the subject - I read the scriptures myself (at least, the religious bits contained within the Theology Council orthodoxy. Most of the Scriptures are the repository of the accumulated scientific knowledge of the Amarr rather than being theological, allegorical or mythological, and in any case the whole thing would take a lifetime, but I've certainly read the most mainstream condensed versions.) I drew my own conclusions, and on this subject I will trust the judgement of nobody else. It's too emotive - people hopelessly delude themselves because they're so addicted to the idea that their religion is benevolent. Their interpretations must be considered biased and thus unreliable.

If my opinions on the religion seem ignorant, insecure or power-mongering, that is because they are - so far as I can tell - accurate and you're just not used to seeing earnest criticism of a subject usually considered sacred. The RELIGION is one of ignorance, insecurity and power-mongering but you're projecting your disgust at the concepts I'm conveying onto me, rather than onto the faith I am accurately describing.



Insulting the person making a point does not prove that point wrong. It's known as an Ad Hominem attack.

Whether or not I am arrogant has precisely zero bearing on whether or not I am correct. If you wish to dissuade me of my opinion, you need to start addressing my observations rather than my ego.

It still is written nowhere that people have to "grovel in the dirt".

"Deity yoke" is not an objective word, and so as a postulate, can not be taken into account for an objective analysis of the subject.

"Being a sycophant to their God" is not an objective word either, and I am not interested in discussing with biased postulates in mind.

Also, what does being a paragon of many subjective values have to do with the subject at hand ?



Your point of view is completely flawed.

Competition can also involve being the best at destruction, chaos, amorality, apathy, lack of education (as shown everyday on the IGS), and an unlimited equally negative counterparts to what you have stated.

There is no norm involved, indeed. Until someone believing in "Meritocracy" starts to set up one. That word has been striped of its meaning by generations of Caldari, Provists, and various other groups over the years.



Then you do not know me at all.



I was actually referring to the usual Amarr charlatans that only chose to see what they want to see, not you- albeit it might be open to discussion as well.

You are another type of charlatan, but probably see more clearly than the ones you constantly think represent the belief itself, when they actually represent a political puppetry.

Being insulted doesn't bother me in the slightest. Either I deserve it, or not. In the former case I try to accept it as duly warranted criticism. In the latter, I ignore it.

What makes this conversation frustrating for me is that a good half of what I'm saying here is basically being met with a "nuh-uh", a flat denial. If you're going to tell me that the general philosophy of Amarr isn't that all glory and worth ultimately belong to and/or originate from God, you need to provide examples of non-Apocryphal Scripture that contradict that idea.

I must point out that my objections and arguments are aimed squarely at the Theology Council orthodoxy that is the mainstream cult of the Empire, and and I'm not accounting for fringe interpretations which may have a more positive, humanistic philosophy. I'm not aware of any such maverick sects, but I'd be glad to learn of them.


I like this argument, however:



Positive and negative are unable to exist without one another, just like left and right. Meritocracy selects for success, and against failure, which are similarly intertwined.

But where do positive and negative come from? They're human constructs and could reasonably be defined respectively as "factors which lead to success", and "factors which lead to failure". The very terms themselves are meritocratic ones. If that's the case then by definition Meritocracy, by selecting for success, selects for positivity.

That's the collective case, of course, and in individual cases "negative" activities can bring success to an individual who exploits the majority. There was an interesting example from evolutionary biology I heard recently: If you have a population of some species in which the males engage in fights for the right to breed with the females, then they might fall into two categories - those who frenziedly fight to the point of exhaustion, injury and possibly death, and those who know how to back down and run away when they're losing.

If the population is majority frenzied fight-to-the-death types then the rare sensible retreater will do rather better than his peers because they'll all be wounded and weakened from bouts of deadly combat while he will remain at peak health, and has a better chance of surviving the winter to make it to the next breeding season. On the other hand, if the population is majority cautious retreaters, then the occasional berserker will rule the roost because the rivals will flee his wrath and he'll get the pick of the mates.

Whichever way around it may be the species, however, continues to thrive and the males will consistently grow bigger and stronger, which comes with added advantages in terms of defending their harem and offspring from predators.

We can see a similar sort of process at work among pod pilots. On one hand, you get the Istvaans who rip off people for hundreds of billions and set themselves up for the foreseeable future, but you also have the solid, dependable, honest types who will profit in the long term from the esteem and trust of their peers. Whichever archetype is successful moment-to-moment, the result has been that Empyreans as a collective have become increasingly shrewd, increasingly wealthy and increasingly powerful.

This dualism breaks down a bit when applied to the State because we have somewhere between three, eight and a thousand billion competing archetypes. Let's call it three - Liberal, Practical and Patriot. But the same principle applies. While each strategy may benefit each sub-faction within the State at any given time, the benefit to the State as a whole arises from the interplay between them. Be too Liberal, too trusting and open-armed, and you become vulnerable to exploitation. Be too Practical, too cynical and immediate, and you lose out to strategies that are longer-term but more profitable. Be too insular and cautious, and you will be outstripped by the risk-takers.

The tug-of-war between these varying approaches will cause individual triumphs and failures. But the big picture is that each side becomes increasingly aware of the flaws and strengths in their approach, how to maximise the latter while compensating for the former. They wobble toward equilibrium but never quite reach it, but with each pass their knowledge grows, they improve and thrive and grow.

You can't have a universe that's perfect for everyone. Destruction, chaos, amorality, apathy and ignorance are all opportunities: terrible for those who fall victim to them, but a rich vein for the adaptable and shrewd to mine. And if the exploited learn to be less vulnerable, anarchic, amoral, apathetic and ignorant in the process, then there has been a net improvement. The greater good of mankind - which I earnestly believe must come first - can be served just as well by these negative events in individual lives as by the positive ones.

The process is directionless, certainly. But look where it's got us so far. We're not in control, we're along for the ride and I personally find it exhilarating.