Actually I've been instructed to talk about fame. There's a "many" in fame if you think about it. There, that wasn't so bad was it - we've found a tenuous link between title and contents. Now we can move on.
God was saying only the other day...
- Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a...
Minute?
- Yeah, how did you guess?
Oh, just the usual blinding inspiration, breath-taking savvy, and the third is unprintable so I'll keep my rhetorical devices to two this time.
- Yeah, well, whatever... What in God's name are you playing at. You know the ban on God related references in this blog.
Yes, I would do wouldn't I as I was the one who wrote the damn instructions.
- Easy, easy does it mate. No need to get violent.
Well it makes me sick, you know.
- It does? I was just quite rightfully objecting to your reference to God. I mean, how ridiculous... "God was saying the other day..." as if you'd know!
As I'd know? Why the hell shouldn't I know. Or the why the hell, for that matter, would you know that I didn't know?
- Er, with all due respect number 16, I'd like to ask you to avoid all unparliamentary language, if you get my drift.
Perfectly, as long as you're willing to avoid all un-Onely language.
- Un-Onely language. What the hell's that?
There you go - now who's the one being unparliamentary.
- Well it is so provoking after all. I make a perfectly reasonable request and you introduce a term that has no basis in the English language.
What? Un-Onely?
- Yes.
Well the whole of language, English included, emerged from the Oneness of One, so I'm surprised you object to my one reference to One.
- One what? That's what I refer to. You can't just throw in one without attaching something to it. Otherwise it's just a number.
Interesting you should say that. Who says I can't?
- Well it's obvious isn't it.
Isn't it? D'you mean "innit"?
- Yeah, innit?
That depends on what you mean by obvious. If you're living in the world of many ones - then yes - you would say it's obvious.
- And that's precisely where we are living. Our world is made up of many someones, none of which terribly important individually, but collectively a great One.
But, if like me you're living in a world of One - in which there is only one single One - and that One can just as easily be referred to as God - then it's hardly surprising that I'd overhear what the One was saying.
- But you have no right to. That would put you above the rest of us if you have direct access.
No it wouldn't - because we're all the same - we're all One, we all have direct access.
- No we don't. I refuse to accept that we all have direct access to the One. Most of us are impure, unworthy, blighted by sin and shame and guilt.
Oh well done - you got in the rhetorical triple whammy.
- Thanks, it just rolled off the tongue quite naturally.
Yes, so you see, by insisting none have access, you're either insisting that only you or your chosen should have access to the One, or that we have to agree to live in the world of your definition - in which we are all fundamentally sinful, evil and unworthy.
- Nice tri.
Thanks - second place sucks but we have to uphold the rule of three after all.
- Yes, I wonder why?
Why not ask the horse's mouth.
- No, blaspheme not. I dare not even consider the possibility. I prefer to accept my failings, weakness and limitations.
You prefer to avoid the One.
- No I don't. Why would I want to avoid the One?
For the same reason you prefer to avoid God.
- I don't wish to avoid God - I'm just unworthy, sinful and one more - whatever it was.
Evil I think you said.
- That's it. Evil, with a vengeance.
No need to overdo it. Pride is, you know, a sin.
- Coming from you that's rich! You're the one who name drops God in casual conversation, wings an'all.
Wings an'all! What a great turn of phrase. I'll use it if you don't mind.
- Ok - just as long as you attribute it to me.
If I must. But that would be like Shakespeare pausing Mercutio's speech to attribute his latest witty remark to such and such a soul...
- Oh alright, have it then, it's yours.
Thanks. You can use mine too, if you like.
- But you never say anything witty.
I do and all.
- Don't.
I do. What about the "God was saying only the other day..." reference.
- Blasphemy and wit are so easily mistaken... No, number 16, that won't pass muster.
Ok - so maybe I'm not witty, but that's because I'm challenging the paradigm you sitting in.
- Who says I'm sitting in anything.
Well it's obvious innit.
- Not it ain't.
Well, whatever it is you're sitting in, if you weren't sitting in sommat, you wouldn't object to me chatting with God.
- Your reason. Let's see you worm your way out of this cul-de-sac of reason, this blank verse of logic.
Blank verse of logic?
- Oh forget it - I know it didn't work. But your reason man.
Who said anything about number 16 being a man?
- Well a woman's hardly gunna talk the way you do.
Who says?
- Get on with it. Your reason woman, if you prefer.
Actually no, I'd much rather be gender neutral.
- Ok, now get on with it, your itness.
Oh, that's much better. "Your itness" has a ring to it. So where was I?
- You were bluffing, trying to buy time, to think of something obviously lacking from your conversation.
What - bitterness and scorn?
- No, fool, reason.
Actually, fool is without any doubt unparliamentary. You therefore lose the right to call the shots.
- I apologise to the itness for my unpardonable outburst of unparliamentary invective. Would it kindly explain why I'm not allowed to challenge your reference to God.
Oh that? I'd almost forgotten. It should be obvious really.
- It should be but it ain't, which is why I'm asking you to clear this matter up.
Ah, but this matter ain't matter at all. It's divine truth. It's the cosmic code of creation. That's why you object to it. You can't argue with it. It simply is - without reference to anything or anyone.
- But things can't simply be - without reference to anyone or anything. Everything has to be a part of the greater order.
Does it? Your reason?
- Well, it's obvious innit?
Can't say that it is - but I'm sure you can make me see reason if you try.
- Well everthing has to be part of a greater order.
Why?
- Because the parts have to make up the whole.
Why?
- Because that's how everything fits together.
Is it?
- Well yes, obviously.
To whom.
- To whom what?
To whom is it obvious.
- To anyone who is reasonable enough to see it.
So I have to be reasonable to see what is obvious.
- Well yes.
So, as long as I'm governed by your version of reason, I'll see everything the way you do.
- Not my version of reason - just by reason. Then everything'll make perfect sense, the way it does to me.
And does everything make perfect sense to you.
- Well yes.
And does it make perfect sense that reason is not the only way of seeing things.
- What do you mean?
Well, reason is one way of seeing things, but not the only way.
- What do you mean? Reason's the only reasonable way of seeing things.
True, but not the only way.
- But be reasonable.
Why?
- Because it's reasonable to be reason.
You want me to see reason.
- Well yes.
Why?
- Because that's the only reasonable way to make sense of everything.
But what if I don't need to make sense of everything? What if everything already makes perfect sense just the way it is, without me needing to make anything of it.
- Then what'd be the point of your existence.
What'd be the point of yours?
- Well obviously to make sense of things.
Have you succeeded?
- Not quite... but we're getting there.
Are you?
- Well, yes. There have been a few minor setbacks.
There have?
- Well yes. The planet has faced some difficulties. Our highly rational approach requires us to verify everything by experimentation, so we have to kill a lot of animals, and our economic system, though highly rational based on Darwin's laws of natural selection doesn't seem to be able to harmonise with the needs of the planet or the sustainability of humanity.
You could say.
- But that's just because we haven't yet hit the highest pinnacle of reason.
Ah ha.
- But that doesn't give you the right to invoke the One.
No?
- No, coz we're almost there, and we don't want God or anyone else to get in our way and stop us completing our mission.
Your mission?
- To make perfect sense of everything.
And do you think there'll be anything left by the time you've completed your mission?
- Do you want my honest opinion?
I suppose so, but give me your half-honest one if you prefer.
- Looking at the situation completely squarely, there's almost no chance that we're going to succeed, but one has to believe in miracles, even if God's not supposed to be a part of it.
Fair enough.
- So, do you accept that we need to be reasonable?
Yes, if you accept that beyond reason there's a whole spectrum of alternatives that you've so far failed to consider.
- What do you mean? Beyond reason there's just un-reason.
Is that so? Have you investigated this scientifically? Have you considered all the alternatives empirically?
- Well no, but it goes without saying.
It did until I said it - so now get to it - earn your keep and consider what lies beyond reason, if you want me to play along with your "don't mention the war", scientists don't need God game.
- Ok, it's a deal. Any clues to get me started?
Oh yes. Start by questioning everything you naturally assume, and go from there.
- Ok. That shouldn't be too difficult...
