God of the Machine
The human condition and the ethological connection: Study of animals in their natural environment
If you want to understand animal behavior, take animals out of captivity, to be studied in their natural habitat. To understand human nature, it’s imperative to study humans in their native environment. That alone is problematic, because the challenge isn’t helped by diversity and complexity within cultural and social systems. What “human” means isn’t easily isolated; sets and subsets of social and intellectual conditions exist within a frame, a container. Awareness, or self-consciousness, takes inventory within milieus particular to one’s experience; hence, consciousness of domain lends to socialized behavior. Realistically, one would have to shed this world to break free of collectivist encroachments, which generally promise security for the whole, replacing individual liberties. The sciences have their protocols, appearing to operate fiercely independent; and yet, helplessly so. Appearing to be free of encroachment, they are not. We all know that funding for studies is persuasive over outcome. Those less atomized understand that autonomy is requisite to social analysis, yet stridencies exist in a world constantly challenging individualism. It’s all very intricate... with a double aspect of clean science and messy truth in play... perhaps this is precisely why left-hemisphere minds are given to scientific method, promoting creative, right-brain suicide. Perhaps right-hemisphere dominance is more honest. Unfiltered, we see raw data surface in the arts; free expression found in visual communications, music lyrics and independent cinema become a better benchmark, serving as veritable genius, culturally disparate of group-think and systemization. Creative expression is deemed countercultural, because institutions of social engineering celebrate and reward linear interests, partisan to reduce humans to cogs in a machine, gears that grind counter-rotational to creative inquiry, dignity and freedom operating absent of power impositions.
Hidden relationships exist politically, creating points of power out of view to the unwitting; accordingly, oppression and repression casts its shadow upon the greater social body. Like a shroud of fog implacably pressing downward, subordinate social forces live out their days in partial obfuscation, acclimating to hazy visibility. It begs the question: is clarity by detachment possible, or will the default setting to fixed premises enfold upon itself, suffocating objectives otherwise?
Imperceptibly, social constructions form around a myriad of oblique and circuitous contexts. Yet beyond symbiotic arrangements and dubious agendas, another challenge exists: understanding our own nature, is (in part) one of self-reflection. So all interest in human nature is, by motivation, inextricably raison d'être; therefore, every path to discovery is punctuated by unilinear predictability. And once again, this celebrates the linear mind. That we find ourselves so fascinating is always on the edge of self-absorption, at a creative deficit. Absent is the contrarian spirit departing from accepted frameworks and apparatuses of social control by the din of dominant ideology. Questioning reliability of neutrality within the existing system is paramount to escape homogeneity persuaded by liberal or conservative deep pockets of fiat prosperity, afforded those dumbing down the masses into mechanistic subservience.
How does one adopt neutrality and disciplined objectivity to extract social distinctions, without falling into self-referential participation? - what ethic of observation must one employ to reduce the subjective base? - how does one speculate and create social theories without some measure of presupposition, or bias?
Unbiased objectivity is impossible without external reference, one that lies outside structures both cultural and social. Is probing into human behavior practicable, without creating ripples of reaction that insinuate upon the process? It seems we are either “categorizing” and “typing,” or (hopefully) motivated to a sense of social justice, in the process of developing social theory; objectivity, if you will, creates antimony by tension intrinsic to human nature. It’s double-sided: to suddenly be in the position to reconcile what amounts to ideological suicide by self-reference. And at the same time this double dealing tugs at us to catch some vision of a future society, to become a reconciler, no longer referentially parroting those things formed through indoctrination, as means to an end. Rather than pretending all is well with certain structures, a higher order of awareness must question certain orthodoxies, although extrinsic to ones reality, nevertheless defining frameworks of social formation that one exists within. I think one is challenged by their own due process. Defining culture risks negating other peoples in the process of peering through the lens of cultural complexity. Put another way, other peoples become the other definition, which describes “our” culture exclusively (apply this to social stratum as well). And still yet another question: are we too intrenched to handle raw data responsibly, when research leads to less flattering discretions? I think humankind has aptly demonstrated the ability to trim unpopular verdicts to fit “selective memory,” to recapitulate, prop-up and reify findings as means of establishing myth as fact. Facts are mingled with a secondary partial reference. On this score, label me a constructivist as you may. But this goes to the tendency of the majority to observe their relationship with the world in survivalist mode, within the frame of imposed morality by “legitimate authority”, constitutionally justifying government interest. That posture alone compels political wrangling... so it is that some institutions appear to be neutral, independent entities, but aren’t actually of that expression.
To be assured, measures of implicit resistance point to unconscious acquiescence. It’s promising that reflexive critique will invoke intellectual dismantling of transient shadows concealing embedded domains within quasi-legal approbations. We truly have to fight against such Plutarch notions.... sanctions contributing to exploitation of Corporation as entity.
There’s little need to cite case studies. It breaks with better sensibilities to argue against history of western civilization. It’s our colonial past that fastens to the fact that we are media-socialized to chalk-up white-collar crime as mere “human nature”; however, when we knowingly swallow that pill, in some manner we include ourselves in nefarious plans hatched within the ranks of power. A good solid look at recent history should take us out of the dark tunnel of ignorant inevitability.
Fortunately, interest in a better society is emergent. Inexorably, political sortition is destined to take shape, exposing inegalitarian structures. Creation of improved social structure is perhaps nascent, but ours is a challenging dispensation. We must provisionally accept that pedantic interpretations of the “rules” will remain in play during phases transformational to a better society. In the big picture, however, weeding out rewards for machinations veiled within religion and politics is not an option. This is the critical task that draws on courage to affirm action, no matter how unsettling and unpopular that may be with powers of persuasion, especially apparent with those controlling the media at large.
Caveats sanctioning criminal activity is truly unconscionable, yet, at present, legally inveterate; therefore, transitionally, the intellectual task must remain steadfast in commitment to successionally expose institutional abusers, to uncover political economies benefiting a tier of elitist control. However, on the other side of that razor thin line, the process of deconstruction is fastened to implicit assumptions; consequently, analysis of what it means to be human is, by definition, befuddled by its own beautiful flaw. An air of unworldliness shares this present world in weakness, while hopefully summoning advocacy, fellow human to fellow human. That’s why it’s imperative to set a sine qua non. Free speech preserved, we must adopt an intensional, nonpartisan approach, absent of tacit assumptions and hidden agendas. But the challenge can’t entirely be met, because, in effect, when it comes to “human,” it takes one to know one. And, yet, what it means to be human isn’t without casting epistemological shadows, human being upon human being, choreographing the location, if you will, of social perimeters. Pure detachment is challenged beyond limits, beyond the standard of “human”.
When objectivity beautifully fails, the choice is simple; we either support existing systems ad hoc, or miss our turnoff to “perfection” and travel networks of back roads to find empathy binding the human race together. Likeness, or is-ness, can’t be set aside entirely, yet detachment is otherwise unattainable; and yet, without clean detachment, progress toward a better society adopts an imperfect evolution toward preserving individual worth and autonomy of each person.
I think it’s a secret hope that we will run smack into ourselves, to find empathy stepping in to our way, in effect teaching us to become human in our pursuit of what it means to be human. Smile at yourself: at the end of the day, it’s all very subjective, isn’t it? But there exists a perfect reference.
The human condition and the Christological dilemma: The endless metanarrative
To study the Trinity person of Jesus, we must have the courage to draw a new frame, a non-frame; a conceptual reference to assuage temptation to study the Christ person in context of man-made structures and ideological apparatus, past and present. This is baseline to Christology, especially within the frame of Jesus’ earthly commission. Also in play is the added bonus of preserving attribution of Christ’s Father, with whom Jesus, in his human condition mind you, had the gall to intreat as inextricably One with himself. So it behooves us to study the Trinity in context of Jesus’ earthly existence, parallel to, and one with, his Father’s true nature; hence, nonconformist detachment from schismatic elements secured within political and religious systems. Our Christology, then, must begin with “Trinity” as entity among us, autonomy requiring no reference to external interdependence. We begin with Trinity as “human-being,” of one mind with the Father, often at variance with established matrices of social norms and religious conventions. In part, his was a mission of contradistinctions. The divinity of Jesus’ earthly presence mocked unilateral control, the facilitating and blocking mechanisms inveterate to mass indoctrination and conformity; whereas, the human Christ mocked hierarchy. In actuality, power brokers are mocked by their own egoic delusions... Jesus simply shows up as the antithesis. By implication, this underlies Jesus’ revolutionary ideological frame, quoted by Matthew, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” In other words, two worlds spin on the same planet... one entirely unchallenged by the other.
As God who became like us, Christ is the only human to offer the ethereal alternative “not of this world”. If we dare follow him into that sphere, embracing his metanarrative, uttering with him the (dare I say) metaphysical mantra, “not of this world,” we will find ourselves, by natural course, in the world, but not of it. Jesus was not a huge fan of the system. In fact, we find him at variance with religionists, uncovering their loopholes, disrupting power interventions projected onto the masses both sensorially and categorically. But he never projected back onto the system morally compliant exigencies in exchange for his “religious” services.
Jesus, of all people, understood humanity. His was a mission, working from the inside out, to extract the human race from the system created in their darkest delusions. This he accomplished without force, without upstaging power structures. His work was to change minds, to revolutionize thinking beyond shadows cast by artificial light. Artificial light displaces “dark,” but never actually displaces darkness. Let’s get this right: darkness called into true Light is no contest. The dominant hegemonic bloc is governmental to the apparatus of artificial intelligence; yet, at the same time, a throwback to the Roman Empire, its “dark” savagery. But God as Light is not militarily at war with darkness. That notion is as silly as clouds canceling out the light of the sun. Really! Above the clouds, it’s sunny, I promise.
Today, as was the complexion of Palestine in the time of Christ, a world vassal to the Roman Empire, the masses comprise roughly 95 percent; whereas, the breakaway-strata, the elitist one percent, conjoined with their four percent “managerial puppets,” comprise unconscionable decadents that capitalize on social and cultural mechanisms. They are (more or less) exempt from the control they impose. The same rules don’t apply to elitist invisibles and their minion cronies. Exceptionally insulated, they don’t use common infrastructure, but as a tool to further their agenda.
Risk of defining human nature by recapitulation, by replaying the past, institutionally “transacts” at the heart of Old Testament dichotomy with Christ’s pure love nature, germane to gospel record: in Exodus 15 we find hostile, intimidating language central to what is often subtitled, Song of Moses, a jingle celebrating the drowning death of Israel’s pursuers, the Egyptian army.
“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (Exodus 15:3 KJV)
But if we carry “man of war” forward, beyond Israel’s emancipation, we reinforce and hypostatize our own logic. By referral we commit egregious error, reading into Jesus’ earthly narrative a God of war. And that’s a point of contention, commensurate to true consequence of the cross: Christ’s exemplary love for humanity. In western culture, however, God is fictionally invested in the politico-religious establishment, mobilizing the war machine. The message belies truth, and our currency tells the story: “In God We Trust” justifies war - only our wars of course - because we are the only Nation (self proclaimed) under God.
This sentiment is postured within North American culture, as political persuasion aggressively advanced by “Biblical prooftext,” garnering allegiance and support for the industrial-military complex. It’s all about commercial value. But the gospel accounts make plain that war is not the mission of Christ... that Jesus’ mission was neither of earthly design, nor dynastic leverage. And the same mind is ours, the mind of Christ; mission not of this world, nor adoption of coercion through reified appropriation. Old Testament ethos cannot eclipse Jesus’ personified self-revelation of Trinity, thematic to New Testament internal liberty from oppressive executive powers. In fact, major sections within the gospel record are dedicated to pure grace revelation. Although the historicity of mosaic law is paid rightful homage, there’s no mistake to be made, a new dispensation begins at the cross. The synoptic gospels begin to unpack this profound understanding, while John’s gospel, authored at a later date, sketches out in detail, inverted, otherworldly orientation - experiential love and emergence of pure grace orientation - rapidly transpires within contemporary generations.
Jesus, in his earthly ministry, never spoke of his Father as a God of war, nor of himself as a man of war. In the extant of the gospel records, we find no allusion to the Song of Moses, nor celebration of wartime’s victory. Humankind’s evolution of discovery culminates with the drama of the cross, the cornerstone that the builders rejected. So why in heaven’s name do we swear upon the world Jesus was not of? That’s the loaded question we must ask and answer, or serve the world’s dictates by default. “Not of this world,” means what it says. We can’t happily live compartmentalized, running on the old adage, one world at a time. It’s actually one world or the other. True happiness begins in “his” world. But, then, regardless of habits shoehorning in faulty narratives, our minds are blown when we see ourselves from the otherworldly perspective. Mystical experience transcends willingness to maintain control. The infinite God is greater than finite minds can possibly imagine. So the Spirit makes that connection in our weakness (Romans 8:26).
It’s altogether inconceivable that the Trinity would view human beings only in context to earthly behavior. Is God really about the business of judging this world, or sin, in accord with various and unfortunate moralizing definitions? Does he play the part of retributive judge in context of human manufactured and imposed systems, including indoctrination mechanisms encouraging compliance to unchallenged modalities? Ask a religious conservative what an ideal society might look like, and “church” is the likely response, probably “their church” being the operative qualifier. The Alt-right, patriotic-Christian would have in mind semblance to the Republican Convention as well. To be fair, no doubt the Alt-left would posture their party’s agenda in some fashion, perhaps as a persuasion reflecting Jesus’ humanitarianism, philosophically recapitulated into humanist agenda. Additional extraneous appendages by apologetic wrangling, such as denominational allegiance and inveterate pet doctrine, are backstory to ideologues presenting more elaborate theological matrices.
Whatever way distortion comes into play, politico-religious systems are solely of this world - an unfortunate mindset, inventions indirectly embraced - not the fault of the masses, but incidental to subjugation and obeisance by systematic acculturation. But, yes, we eat our own flesh, allowing measures of polarization to exist between reactionary lines we draw. It’s a casualty, because we miss the premise of the eucharist, the radical injunction spoken by the Trinity Teacher, “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”. We contribute to civil war, drawing up battle lines. I wish that wasn’t the harsh reality of ignoring “in this world, but not of it”; but, let’s be honest, that’s the postulate North American, two party politics projects onto the masses. And, again, it’s worth repeating: we eat our own flesh. Sadly, the masses are foolish enough to project two-party politics back on to themselves, without questioning the veracity of self actuated divisiveness in effect.
Moral of the story: the non-moral gospel:
As a study, Christology must answer two questions: who was Jesus (identity in view)? and, what significant accomplishment should humankind attribute to his nature, human and divine? Calibrating the Trinity person of Jesus to the very world he claimed to be “not of,” encourages unfortunate consequence; whereas, realignment to Jesus’ intention, adopting the purview of an immutable Creator, frees good minds to embrace Way, Truth and Life, decidedly disparate to limiting effects of power stratifying, caste system models. The use of the term “model” indicates power enclaves, contemned by the liberating message of the Teacher.
Jesus is Truth, “One” in divinity; yet, in human form, his stratagem of disarmament came not through diplomacy or pacification. He came as a bold marauder, to completely rob the system of its power, to liberate humanity through unmasking pretext, impeaching ruling class ideologues; hence, exposing false assumptions, until the Teacher’s students, the world itself, convince themself that the very nature of false identity socializes into constructs that cage fellow humans. To escape, is to cancel out the illusion of fixed ideas, in which our trust is misplaced within.
Remarkably, eternal judgement is never found on the lips of Jesus. His criticisms were always non-sensorial, nonmoral, viewing fellow humans, his most valued creation, as “not of this world”. This is well witnessed in the Trinity person of Christ having graced this earth place as bold challenger of destructive distortions, turning over the money changers tables, swinging his countercultural wrecking ball straight into the religious establishment of his day. Further, in the Holy Spirit’s power, he lived life within existing social systems, but never in league with “the system”. Entirely without judgement, Jesus often crossed paths with the illusory element. It was at these dusty intersections that their true religious agenda surfaced. But the Divine-human defused their plans of entrapment, never lending to absolutist saturated social economies. His was the master plan to liberate the very world he graced and loved, the very world that cooperated to make his Passion possible.
“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”, echos across the canyon of human history as no other pronouncement of pure grace could. The inclusiveness of humanity upon the cross tells the story of God having become like us, to be us, for us. And, in that frame, Christ became the first fruit (singular) of many (all), having untangled humanity from the dragnet of Adam’s universal split of human complexion, a symbolic reordering, notwithstanding homologous reengineering, of body, soul and spirit. The human, merely psychologically isolated, but truly fractured by their own illusion of separation, threw themself into the boat, into the catch of collusion against their Creator. Jesus boards the boat, then throws the entire catch back into the water... water, their true element of transformation. Christ baptized humanity into his death, into his innocence. For the sake of human conscience, creating righteous revolution, his was a radical gesture, that unduly stripped-out separation myth and washed to purity every stain of his accusers; yet, as with the Noahic account, the world, its governmentality, continues crashing toward ‘final’ reset in a future dispensation. The last reset, aimed at decay of the universe, heaven(s) and earth, will not come by water, but by fire, by conflagration of pure love. For now, in this dispensation of grace, sigh of relief is exhaled with staggering good news: death no longer conspires against the human race. Our funeral service ended at the cross. Christus Victor is the One for all, inclusive victory we are invited to celebrate. Any other victory celebration is the created tossing confetti onto the parade of the created, thus, challenging the Creator for dropping themself into the world; hence, by their very nature, exposing determinate notions of vanguard elitism, namely establishment insinuating upon the masses a staged deus ex machin. The very idea of a dominant strata, actors playing the part of god of the machine, is laughable. The masses are truly in power; yet, sadly, acquiescent to illusion, ever bandaging festering soars of fearful desolation. Is religion truly the best option we can muster up? I think not. Love is the answer that satisfies all.
Love demonstrably cures ailments of the human condition. But will we entrust our trust to such an abstraction? - or will we take up legacy’s preoccupation with identity beyond death, disconnected from posterity’s promise beyond the grave? There is a cost for all things love embodies, but the freeway is paved beyond gravesite eulogies.
Fortunately, love always wins, but lays its life down doing so. Jesus is the dead soldier by friendly fire, casualty of the only world war fought on God’s terms. Christ is the true model of native born human, One whom among Trinity became the suicide king. Ontologically, we must come to understand ourselves in his humanness (Christ consciousness, if that assimilates better), or risk harm to each other by default, narrowly defining neighborhood, and entirely missing the point of love your neighbor as yourself. — Andrew
