Intergalactic Summit

No, there is a difference between questioning your faith and challenging your faith. To question your faith is to do so from the standpoint of doubt and uncertainty, this implies a lack of faith not the presence of it. I would prefer that all people challenge their faith. Challenge its application, not its validity. Challenge its interpretation, not its veracity.

Again, your perception is understandable though not entirely accurate. The concept you are referencing (that the gates of paradise will open one time only) is found in the Book of Missions chapter five verse fourteen and is written to the faithful after a challenge to examine themselves and understand the nature of faith, its place and purpose and what the difference between solid faith and faith dependent upon acceptance is. You must take all things in context to fully understand them. In this case, the passage you refer to is those who once followed the faith and then willfully and knowingly betrayed it, turning their backs on the truth. This is not a bar to the readmission of all heretics, for indeed one can become a heretic while pursuing the truth and simply clinging to an incorrect interpretation of Scripture; it is a bar to those who willfully ignore or change Scripture to suit their own desires, creating their own gods and religions while openly blaspheming the truth revealed on the Word of God.

The way to avoid the above scenario is to challenge your faith in order to better understand it, to seek guidance in questioning and to pursue truth in all things. This requires critical thinking.



Now you take the argument out of context. You branded an entire people incapable of critical thinking by virtue of comparison to another group of people who you claim are capable of and have demonstrated this capacity. That was the point of my initial contention and it is not the same you have said of the Caldari. Comparisons drawn between the Caldari and the Amarr have been entirely cultural and have not been relevant to our discussion at this point.



I have never claimed to be without misunderstanding, Miss Jenneth. Nor am I the one taking it upon myself to proclaim self-perceived small truths of other peoples and nations, you are the one whom has opened herself up for criticism. Understand that my involvement in this discussion has been in regard to your assessment regarding the Amarr being incapable of critical thinking and nothing further. The original topic of this discussion is in regards to the Caldari.

As far as your people and their faith being intertwined, that is very similar to the Amarr. Just as you perceive that your understanding of the Totality and your place within it is the truth, we perceive the revelation of God through Scripture and our subsequent place in all creation as the truth. The two are irreconcilable. The primary difference being that we believe all of creation to be held to a purpose bestowed upon by God and that he has mandated that all be brought before him in righteousness.

The cost of rebellion and unrighteousness is eternal servitude and hardship in the order of Paradise, the reward of submission and righteousness is harmony with God and eternal peace and elevation. Our desire is to spare all the cost of rebellion and unrighteousness by showing them the truth of the revelation of God through Scripture and the pursuit of righteousness. That you hate us for it is understandable but our concern for your eternal spirit surpasses our desire for your acceptance.

That, if you must point to any, is a "small truth" of the Amarr, Miss Jenneth.

I will bow out of this conversation at this point as it was not meant to be about the Amarr but the Caldari. My original point of contention was that we are not incapable of critical thinking and you do anyone a disservice by suggesting so. If you seek understanding then attempt to understand first, please.

The hour is late so I can't do you the justice of a full reply for now, but I didn't want to leave you without anything at all so I'll answer this.


Your overview of the Federation was a well written critical viewpoint from your perspective. While bits and pieces are for debate, I can understand why you'd come to the conclusions you had, and the points were valid.

I expected the same treatment, I wouldn't expect you to say unambiguously bad things, but I'd expect you to be able to write constructive critisism outlying issues and how these things can be adjusted or avoided. I believe in your own words you may well have soft-peddled it.

I wasn't expecting you to come out and slam your own culture, but I expected you'd do your own analytical prowess service.

That isn't necessary, Mr. Amith, though we can likely save much of this for later.

Let's start here: I do not "hate" your people. I seriously don't "hate" anybody much, not even Sansha's Nation (though that last is a new-ish development). I do find that discussing matters of faith with those who share yours is a little like talking to a wall, however: unless I catch one of you already in a crisis, the conversation from my side is largely ended before it's begun.

You live in a universe very different from mine, a universe in which divine revelations were given to the Amarr, and are to be carried out. Asking you to question this universe you live in is like asking me to question the deck plate beneath my feet: most of you just won't do it, and it's useless to ask. This is the sense in which the Gallente are critical thinkers in a way the Amarr are not.

However you took it, this is how it was meant: a remark on the basic futility of asking the Amarr, by which I mean most of you, to seriously consider an image of your society in the absence of a literal God. Even those who will contemplate it usually finish off with, "Well, happily, God exists, and all of this is according to His design, so it's all just fine. You'll learn in time." (After, by implication, I'm duly conquered and enslaved.)

As I say, I don't hate the Amarr. I leave that to the Minmatar. They've got better cause for it, anyway. That doesn't mean I'm not prepared to fight your Empire to the death; it just means that I don't hold your faith against you. You act in accordance with how you see the world; there is nothing very blameworthy in that, and it's resulted in a marvelously stable, if predatory, society.

But, that's something to discuss later.


Mr. Marellus:

"Small Truths" is not about constructive criticism, if only because I don't believe most of the issues I point out are fixable. It is the nature of a small truth to be systemic: they are the fictions underlying a civilization, giving it order and shape. In a modern society, these are usually well-established to the point of permanence: it is difficult to change these for the same reason it is tricky to modify the foundation of a building without first tearing the building down.

I don't much care for Caldari materialism (as I've said about four times in this topic, now), but can you imagine the plight of the Caldari megacorporations if all their customers abruptly decided to go visit a monastery or go hiking (without spending anything on equipment, first) instead of going shopping? The economy would implode.

This is a series of descriptive essays, examining the foundations that support various civilizations. If these foundations provide the necessary support, they are basically doing their jobs. None of these foundations are perfect. None are likely to be readily "fixable." None, except the Nation's, are what I would consider nonfunctional (the Nation is about the only power in New Eden that I believe worthless on its own merits). Of the major empires, there are two I regard as structurally predatory (conquerors), effectively forcing any civilization based on that set of "small truths" to try to consume others. This is a fairly profound problem both for the affected civilization and anybody else living nearby.

The State is not one of these; it's learned all kinds of lessons, some of which can be hard on its residents, but trying to eat its neighbors is not among them. If Tibus Heth has ideas about conquering the whole Federation, he's an outlier, and a dangerous one, but I suspect that he will be content with being allowed to keep his prize winning: Caldari Prime.

I've always suspected that the Jove favor the Caldari State and Minmatar Republic (which they officially do) because these are the two powers they think are least-likely to try to reenact the Battle of Vak'Atioth. If the State and Republic escape the kind of criticism I have levelled or will level at the Federation and Empire, it is because that apparent perspective is one I am deeply sympathetic to.

We Caldari still feel the cold of space and the howl of winter winds. Our flaw is fear, friends. We are afraid. We fear the unknown and so we seek to quantize it, tame it with numbers - this is my profession in fact. We turn it into ISK and in so doing gain some measure of control in a brutal and uncaring world. We use this control to purchase time, time for life, for love, for friends and family.

This is something we cannot admit to ourselves, or to others. Our culture in fact is wholly bent to cradling this fear, preserving it as we protect it from view. And so, our small truth - that which conceals what we cannot bear to admit. Our pride in materialism, our pride in merit, our pride in honour. If we took no pride in it, we would have to end our lives in shame. This is our small truth, that little lie we tell ourselves, and hold dear, for with it we conceal our nightmares.

Don't be upset. Be happy! You've collected some excellent data points from the discussion thus far and can now work that information into your paper. It's a good opportunity!

You are very Caldari, Miss Jenneth.

I disagree, then.



So we agree, then.



Some would also call it patriot bullshit. All of those are petty, mere excuses for people that can not find any justification for an act they consider morally wrong or at best, selfish, but necessary. There is no necessity, only fallacies here. You speak about excuses, and excuses only, at the expense of logic and reason.

I have seen how the Amarr do not even refer to an individual or collective spirit, but to a timeless God and an everlasting Empire. It may be true, but again, merely excuses.

And that will never remove the core of all humans, which is to care about one's own family and needs before anything else. Most people are still left to that level, everywhere. I am afraid that this retaking of a thing once lost is the product of a few leading minds for political reasons, or personnal delusions.



It is not so much my standards for tragedy that are low, but yours that are biased by petty factionnalism or nationalism, or the art of trying to find rhetorics to prove your culture superior to another one, which is a subjective inanity in itself. An inanity because it is highly unproductive, absurd, and shows a true lack of sense and a blindness to the bigger picture.

For an ambition stopping at one's own advantage like the practicals, isn't it the exact same case for Reclaimers ? Isn't it the same for Quafe ? Isn't it the same for Shakorites ? The fallacy in your point lies exactly here : the ambition of all these groups stops at their own advantage indeed, at the expense of others. I say here again, there is no difference between a Reclaiming Empire, an imperialist Federation, an economically expansionnist State, or an aggressive chaotic tribal entity. Pots and kettles. You can try to lower the tragedies of one to make you feel better, it will never change the fact that it is all for show, biased by your own feelings putting a higher sense of danger for something more alien to your senses than another.

You speak about Nation. You may know that I oppose them the same way that you do, and many do. But I do not disagree with most of their beliefs. They are free of regressive thinking shown by all nationalists. They just happen to believe in something different, incompatible with what I believes in, and also believe that both cannot live each in their respective space (since they need manpower and are unable to live by themselves like parasites, you know...).

Which means that yes, of course I have my own agenda. Like everyone. Ms Katla's Astropolitanism was interesting and very similar to what I believe in, indeed. But that does not mean that I share it, however. There is an absolutist will in her movement akin to Sansha that I feel damageable and troublesome. If people like the Caldari and the Minmatar, or even an enlightened Nation, want to live in their own corners in autarky, I do not see any issue with it, but they should do it instead of complaining while still opening their borders to adversity. Because what I see here is essentially a matter of denying adversity and all that comes with it. One can not have one's cake and eat it.

I can assure you that Amarrian traditionnalists have nothing to do with that.

They also ceased diplomatic relations with the Gallente at the outset of the Caldari-Gallente conflict. And gave the pod first to the Caldari. I think it quite obvious they have a good grasp of many forms of aggressive behavior.. My own logical process wonders why you would neglect such a fact, one that is directly correlatory to the point you are trying to make?

I found both your original OP and the revised one well-written and interesting, and much like the Gallentean one, they provided me with bits of perspective I simply never had before.

Thank you.

And PS. You cant please everyone. Some argue with everything simply because they lack a hobby I think.

That would be interesting as well. Do you have sources I could read on the matter ?

Also, I do not understand what causes you trouble in the point I am trying to make. Because the Jove, that can not stand aggressive behavior, ignored one major power guilty of it - and a second one if you are correct - does not mean that they can not ignore other major powers in the future. Or even right now. Who have heard of them since YC 111 after all ?

There is something else, too. I especially added that they might miss other forms of aggressiveness. I am not sure if the Jove are a model of virtue or perfection ? If they are not, what does it proves ?



It would be with pleasure.

Though I do not think that this culture exists currently, but more that it only starts to emerge and will someday probably prevail.