Intergalactic Summit

Reading this I'm happy to have named a ship after you. Even if I do have my reservations about your Imperial entanglements.

Hehee. Ave, Emerita. I'm aware of the apparent contradiction. There are a lot of different ways of explaining this, but I'm not sure any of them will really satisfy you. I guess I'll try from the ground up.

Probably the single largest way my moral reasoning differs from the Amarr is that mine kind of starts here: you seem to see the universe according to a rational divine plan, where everything ultimately makes rational sense if only you have the insight to understand it. I see the universe as a seamless whole without a guiding intelligence, certainly not one we would recognize as being either sapient or particularly caring about us. What's more, we're not in any way separate from it; we're just additional processes taking place intertwined inextricably with the rest. And we aren't even really here, in the way we like to think of ourselves as being. We're temporary figments, products of our own survival mechanisms as organisms.

So, in my universe....

1. Nothing matters.

This might sound like a horror to you, but--

2. The above observation is not an exception to itself.

The universe lacks clear moral polarity. Morals are subjective, and at the highest level what we do and what becomes of us in this way simply does not matter. That doesn't let us very much off the hook, though, because our actions have consequences for both ourselves and others, and it is very easy to create effects that will matter to us.

It is from here that Shuijing moral sensibility derives. It's largely a question of existential courtesy: we're all figments together, and while no person need necessarily fear offending the heavens, it's pretty easy to offend your neighbor. ... But even that is still being selfish, since you're approaching the situation out of a fear of reprisal. There's no great benefit in selfishness, since there's nothing really there to protect.

However, most people aren't aware of this (even if they intellectually know it), so we pretty quickly find ourselves in a situation where people are out for their own interests and the interests of those close to them. This is the basic mental state of humanity: my family, my friends, my village; the rest of the world can burn.

And, as noted, in an absolute sense, that's okay. If we want to really protect those things, though, we ought to try to minimize conflict with others (there's always a bigger fish, after all), so, one way or another, we start trying to create larger and larger ... sort of non-aggression pacts, I guess you could say. As they get larger, they keep having to do business with or work around human psychology and power structures, and keep getting more complex.

Obviously, there are people who think this whole "civilization" thing is useless and feel they'd be better off without it. I ... kind of think it's a pretty good idea, though. And there are ways of thinking and behaving that tend to be helpful to it, and to people, generally. Naturally, my view of exactly what those are would come from my own culture.

The set of Achur virtues I try to practice (these are common to several sects, not just Shuijing) are: curiosity, compassion, humility, moderation. The world is a wonder worth exploring; we are all in this together; in the eye of heaven, we are none of us great; extremity leads to disruption.

For me to disregard my own possible pain is consistent with humility. For me to disregard others' pain is consistent with no virtue-- but for me to take it seriously is consistent with compassion.

I am a figment, even if I do not fully understand and internalize this. If I treat myself as unreal, and others as real, this may not reflect the underlying reality of what is real, and what is illusion-- but that reality isn't important anyway.

However ...

The above is what I would reason if I had done this entirely by my own initiative and will. I don't trust my own judgment so far, though; my soul is poisoned, and I can easily disregard the importance of others' lives. By my own choice, my will is bound by oath to Directrix Daphiti's. My interpretation of that will is necessarily imperfect, and informed by my own feelings and existing perceptions, but I do what I can to stay true to it.

The Directrix knew of Nauplius's interest in me, and had warned me to avoid making deals that would put me in his presence. I thought she'd want those people rescued, though. And while I thought she'd understand if I declined to put myself at risk for their sake, I also thought she'd be a little disappointed.

My duty as the Directrix's retainer, and my duty as a human being according to my sect's teachings, therefore aligned.

This seems to often be the case.

We have some differences in culture and in ways of thinking, but there's a reason I came to the Amarr, and to Directrix Daphiti, when I realized there was something really wrong with me.

Well, your suspection that the explanation you'll give won't satisfy me - as we will see in more detail below - is right. That doesn't mean that I believe that there is no explanation I will find acceptable: While the universe itself may or may not be rational, humans are able of reason. Thus I expect any explanation of action to be one that is rational in that sense: That it shows how the action seemed to be reasonable to the actor. We don't need an exquisite metaphysics of the rationality of the universe for that and much less any theology.


The problem here is, though, that all those consequences are illusory. There is neither 'ourselves' nor 'others': Subjective can be reduced, in this view, to mean 'illusory' and thus basically 'non-existent'. The ontology you have here basically doesn't allow for ethics, because there is fundamentally nothing for the study of morals to study.


Now, this is some dialectic contortions here. According to you, there really is nothing to protect, yet if we really want to protect those things - which really don't exist at all - we have to minimize conflict - which doesn't matter nor is really there either as conflict would need to be a relation between things which aren't real to begin with? That doesn't work out. Either you have to concede that families, friends, villages and you exist in some sense that is meaningful and that some things do matter after all or the way you're taking here is blocked to you due to the nonexistence of anything but the totality and the general meninglessness of totality.

Also, the claim that the basic mental state of humanity is "my family, my friends, my village; the rest of the world can burn" is quite a steep claim. There is a lot of scientific work out there that shows that humans are basically cooperative beings and that children are helpful to people without making this 'we' versus 'them' distinction: Humans actually have to learn this mindset, they close down the range of people to which they extend altruistic behaviour that's costly. All the while, altruistic behaviour that is low-cost or cost-neutral is extended to complete strangers even in adults. Giving someone directions who seems lost and is asking for the way is, for example, over all cultures of new Eden, done without anyone having to make an conscious effort of thinking about how it is necessary to do so to minimize conflict. They usually simply do it. It's - apparently- human nature. Humans are basically cooperative animals.
So, arguably, what you describe as 'basic mental state' is actually a secondary, derived state of mind, which we only need when resources become scarce. Wherever humanity first evolved, though, the environment must have been sufficently resource rich to allow for us to worry about competing with one another only in a secondary way. Then, in turn, only this deeply ingrained cooperativeness allowed us to colonize adverse environments. Look around you: Everything, pretty much, depends on cooperation. Capsuleers often forget that they, as "powerful" as they deem themselves to be, depend on cooperation with other humans as much - or even more so - than any other human being.

Thank you for your responses, Emerita. I'll start with the easiest bit.

I didn't exactly pull the 150 number out of the air, though we can maybe argue how well-established it is.

To your observation about how children relate to strangers: as a matter of survival it's likely in the interests of children not to be especially picky about whom they associate with, and in the interests of the species as a whole to avoid harming them. (We might name various reasons for this, including the usefulness of new genes in established communities and the relative ease of integrating children into them.) Few societies encourage the slaughter of children, even of deadly enemies, and charity organizations often use images of children to provoke sympathy.

Moving on: the maybe somewhat barren ontology I sketch is only really problematic if we take a sort of cosmic polarity as our only source of moral authority. You seem happy to argue against the first observation without really engaging with the second, which is hugely important:

It does not matter that nothing matters.

Our status as figments does not (obviously) mean that we cannot be happy, or miserable. It does not drain our experiences of meaning if that meaning is something only we can appreciate. You seem to want there to be a single arbiter, a unified theory of right and wrong, which is a very Amarrian way of looking at things, but it seems that what you want is something we pretty literally make up as we go along. The universe isn't the final arbiter of whether something is good or bad, because the universe declines to arbitrate.

Thus:

The Caldari develop Caldari ethics through the Way of the Winds that apply mostly to themselves and their own identity and behavior. Some of it relates to dealings only with other Caldari, while some of it is internal (related to the identity and spirit of the person) and therefore applies to dealings with everyone, and that is okay. They recognize kindred souls in the Achura, and extend "Caldari" protections to them, also, and that is likewise okay.

The Amarr and Gallente develop ethical codes that they extend to everyone, and that is similarly okay. It might be a little less okay if you happen to disagree and get in their way, however.

I'm afraid you're going to find me pretty pragmatic for your tastes on most ethical and socio-political topics, Emerita. To me, if an approach works (defined here as keeping people able to live more or less happy lives and keep them from fighting each other at the village-to-village level for as many generations at a time as possible), I will probably find good things to say about it.

Note that, for example, the Sani Sabik fail this test outright: their societies are unstable at the philosophical level, leading swiftly to collapse.

(I might agree that there is no study of universal ethics, and that the study of ethics on a cultural level quickly ends up just being anthropology or sociology. I'm ... sorry? I guess? I guess what I'd really say is that the field of ethics as practiced within the Empire is really a highly-evolved form of normative theorizing, in which the culture's base assumptions are extrapolated from and crafted into more-sophisticated tools. In a society like the Empire, which aims to be the expression of God's Kingdom in this world, this is a pretty important process.)

(... Come to think of it, really, I don't want to talk you out of thinking that the universe has a moral polarity to it, and really shouldn't try. Given your position in the world, that would ... be really unkind. I don't want to be such a terribly bad guest.)

(You're probably really resistant to my way of seeing the world, but-- maybe I should stop?)

So-- ... about the Directrix:

I know I place a burden on her. I hope that my service will be of adequate value to pay my debt. It's hard to weigh these things, though, especially before events play out.

I'm also aware of the tie between my willingness to kill and my view of the world. It's not one that I'm exactly unique in; the tradition of the warrior monk is an ancient one, and the path to insight through combat is traditionally stained with blood and lined with bodies.

I aimed to be a sword-saint. My actions with PY-RE were steps down that road. But I guess my conviction's not that strong.

Even so, some things can't easily be un-done. I don't desire to be a cruel person who disregards others' lives-- but I have to admit that it is, in some way, my job.

Emerita, you suggest that I might have left something out in portraying my sect's ontology. And-- that might be a little true; it's hard to capture all the nuances. Maybe if I reframe it a little?

To me, the world is a single, seamless whole-- all it contains exists in permanent unity, without names or borders. This is the Totality. We are parts of it that have not parted, fragments that have not fragmented.

It is a wonder.

Our forms are transitory. We are matter and energy that walks and talks, feels and thinks-- thinks pretty highly of itself, really. But really we're just knots of combined influences, information and interaction combining with a rotating cast of molecules in a self-impressed personal drama called "a life."

This is a privilege. We get to explore this thing we are a part of. And when we die and the illusion called "self" ends-- this is no horror. We just cease pretending to be separate, and return to being what really we always were-- unified with the seamless whole that is the Totality.

This is the one Truth I believe in.

This is not the person I expected to see echo the points I've been making to her for some time now. Nonetheless, it's somewhat reassuring to see it's obvious enough that it's recognizable to New Eden at large. Although, the change is occurring even faster than I had anticipated.

I'm pretty sure it's too late though. The choice has been made, and now all that really remains is the rationalization, and that process is well under way. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect all that remains to be seen is when she should be mourned.

Mh. You shouldn't be quite so cavalier on the subject, when I know you understand the very real danger.

Balled Fist? Slave Collar? News to me. Me thinks some other people are looking at the world through jaundiced, and perhaps rather cracked, glasses.

Ar e we reading the same thread and talking about the same corporation Aria's been a valued and contributing member of in accordance with her choices and growth as a person?

I was struck and moved by her decision to take the personal risk at meeting nauplius to save the last group of survivors. The old aria would never have done that I fear. A job well done. I hope to continue reading about your journey.

This is an entirely different approach from the one which tries to deduce morality from your ontology of "non-caring totality of being". You can't deduce your working-conditions from an ontology that denies the existence of people etc. Yes, your ontology says there's nothing that cares whether you do it. But "it" doesn't care either way: Neither if you do, nor if you don't. Again, it lends no support to any morality, whether subjective or objective, whatsoever. You can just leave this ontology out of any of your accounts for morality and it won't hurt: Rather it will be beneficial for your argument to leave your ontology out of it as your ontology says that there cannot possibly be any support for morality beyond the subjective.


And your ontology is as un-interested in this as it is in your own interest in stable societies. Yet, isn't it interesting that instability at the philosophical level shows itself in reality? And there I thought the universe declines to arbitrate?


First, you're a bad debater if you decline to honestly bring forward all your arguments - or what you think to be arguments. Dishonesty to your host, by the way, is one of the worst crimes a guest can be guilty of, where I come from.

Second, there is no need to be sorry for holding onto beleifs you hold to be true. Rather, if you hold onto them despite holding them to be false, you should be sorry. That doesn't mean I think that you're right in holding them to be true: But whether they are to be considered as such or not is to be decided in reasonable discourse, not through social pressure - even if some people suggest that I'm doing just that here. If I do, then I exert pressure to accept the rules of reasonable discourse. - Which really would be a terrible thing of me to do, exert pressure on a human being to use it's faculty to reason: When there can be no greater freedom imagined than being free of the constraints of reason. Harrumph. That's enough irony for today, I guess.


There are plenty of warrior saints in my culture as well. Being ready to indiscriminately kill isn't what makes them thus, though, and I doubt that in Achur culture indiscriminate killings are the hallmark of warrior saints, either.

I'm ready to bet my left hand that even Achur sword-saints and warrior monks were expected and did kill for the right reasons, rather than just because the universe doesn't care whether they do or don't, heading out, killing a dozen times a hundred of people - to then be revered as sword-saints. But then, I might be totally wrong and should marvel at how this goes together with a virtue-canon that extolls compassion and moderation as prime virtues.

Do not listen to the guri, suuolo. He is bitter and broken. He has lost himself in deceit, and it veils his sight so it is all he sees. He is incapable of kindness and mercy, so the very idea of it being given by others is utterly alien to him.

I have known both the you that once was and the you that you are. Both share the same intelligence and thoughtfulness. Just as you were then, you still are one that I'm proud and honored to consider one of my kirjuun.

And you, Mokk, do not truly know Nicoletta Mithra if you would accuse her of stooping to lies and coercion. Yes, she shares God's Word, but she does not do it to coerce or enslave. She shares it because it is what she believes in and sees it as a source and comfort and solace to others. Just as you share hatred and lies because that's all that you know.

And if think that Aria would be coerced in a life and belief that was not of her choosing, you know her less than you think.

Okay, so--

I'm continuing my discussion with Emerita Mithra elsewhere. There's a lot worth talking over, but I don't really want to see it take over this topic ...

... whether I continue it or not.

In some sense, the travel-writing aspect of this project ended a while ago. Maybe I'll get to resume it some day, but, really, the only "Sojourn" writings I've been doing lately are these, here.

I started "Sojourn" because I wanted to travel, and see the world with clear eyes. Other "Sojourn" topics have been about the world I've traveled through, and things I've seen. This one's ... sort of "Sojourn: Life"-- my existence since waking up a bit over a year ago, not knowing my own name.

At the beginning, I was maybe a kind of blank slate-- someone with little experience in being, even, a person. So, sure, I had the potential to become a lot of different things, to play many different parts. But even at that time I was something a little more complicated than a child; I had a head packed with pre-existing knowledge I didn't know how I'd learned, and assumptions and beliefs I didn't entirely remember that I held.

Then, also, I was sort of born a hawk, with sharp talons, strong claws, and a taste for the hunt. I was probably never going to stay unblooded, so I maybe wasn't the best kind of neutral observer.

Still, for a while, I was sort of a stranger to this world. Maybe I would be, still, if I'd avoided worldly entanglements and just trod lightly-- if I were a better monk, and more at peace with being alone. From the start, though, I've wanted companions, teachers, places to be a part of. People I trusted.

I've wanted a home.

It's in the nature of finding such a place, though, that it tends to influence one's point of view. So-- yes, of course I've changed, towards some and away from others. In the Empire I've found things that I needed, things that seem to be rare among our kind: moderation, kindness, decency-- the willingness, even, to take a wounded Falcon, and try to help her heal, instead of just using me.

And of course they've tried to influence me-- are there any of you that wouldn't have? (Isn't that what you're doing now?) They've probably succeeded in a pile of little ways. I don't mind being influenced by people I trust and care about.

It's not like I wasn't aware of it. It's not even very unwelcome; I know, and knew, that this sort of thing is important to the Amarr. They have to try.

They'll have time to work on me, too. I do plan to stay. In twenty years, I expect that Senior Captain Fierach is going to be shaking her head at me and saying, "Still an unrepentant heathen. Unbelievable."

(She was already saying that after two months, but she doesn't really seem like someone whose opinions change a lot.)

But I don't see this as anything sinister, Sinjin, Miz, Deitra. And if someone snaps a collar on my neck, or a TCMC set to my head, or drops me in a Cleansing Pit-- I guess I'll have earned it, for having misjudged so horribly.

For now, I'm still on a temporary stay in this transient existence. But I guess I'm done actually traveling around for the moment, so ... maybe I should really bring this to a close, and, maybe, start something new.

I guess I'll think it over. Thank you all.