Former atheist speaks out...

[Kevin Solway]

How does "mass murder" evoke "pleasure?"

It is well known that having power over other people, such as killing them, can provide much pleasure to the person doing the killing.

"Believing in Jesus" is like mass murder in that it involves a killing of truth — a power over truth, which provides much pleasure.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert,

But the thing that I am pointing at and am interested in is the idea of 'shamanic initiation'. That is the distinguishing feature. Sure, everyone who is alive has some relationship to the patterns I wrote about (casting down important tidbits to the baby QRS magpies, helping them to grow big and strong and 'black with knowledge' so as to one day leave the nest and begin the long trek---with me as a jolly jester leading them along---to Zion!), but it is only someone who goes through a 'crisis of initiation' who has no choice, or greatly restricted choice, in these matters.

You are not recognizing that this 'shamanic model'---that of selection---is what separates an initiate from a non-initiate. I am assuming that many people here have a unique seriousness about their relationship to 'truth'. Indeed, the QRS-tians describe processes of living in an underworld, a hell realm, and of periods of deep confusion, upset and reorganization. When I look at the narrative they present, I see the shamanic element. When one is an 'initiate' (having gone through a psycho-spiritual process that costs a great deal, separates one from 'normal life' and gives one a radically new path), one is automatically in a different category.

'A religious person' is just a person who gets involved in religion. You can do that just like you start a corporation, or build a house, or anything at all. Getting involved in religious ideas is really not such a big deal. Opening oneself up to what we generally refer to as 'God', now that is something altogether different. If you go to far with that, there ain't no turning back. Must people never set out on that path because they intuitively recognize the price they'll have to pay. One's initiation, one's tutelary spirit, can give you everything, but in order to do that (in most cases) everything has to be taken away. That is 'shamanic dismemberment'.

"It's the human situation, not a particular shamanic one."

But you are disregarding the critical element. The human situation, if you wanted to use modernity as a model, is having been bred and raised up to serve as a biological cog, and when that becomes too utterly Orwellian for you, and the sense of your slavery percolates up to consciousness, there are all kinds of lovely pills they'll give you so that you don't really have to feel your reality.

If you were to ask me, part of the 'shamanic endeavor' (religious, spiritual, ethical, Christian, Prophetic endeavor) implies coming directly into contact with the 'spirits' of bondage. That is what the 'underworld journey' is about in our day and age. The implications of all this go straight to the most relevant and the most crucial existential questions. Through highlighting this, I am actually attempting to place the QRS-tian Magpies in a favorable light, as if the sky had opened and a Divine ray has shone down upon them. The underworld journey is seeing what we are up against, and the shamanic praxis, if you will permit me, is to work out a solution in one's own being.

Most people, and I am sure you know this, do not have the interest, nor the calling to get involved in such a strange endeavor. But again, what I find most interesting (because my attitude is Tragic) is not what the result of it all is, but more in the nature of the struggle. It seems that this crazy, outlandish God wants us to behave in certain ways without necessarily understanding the outcome of it all.

"Do you know where you're talking about? From a true shamanic perspective everyone is already dealing with spirits and guides, even if many would never see it that way. And it's just a way to see it, really."

But they have not gone through a process of 'shamanic initiation'. You see, Diebert, anyone who gets involved very deeply in ideas and knowing, provided they have some personal power, becomes a guide and a teacher. That is Rule Number One. The world of ideas is like a jungle and you need a Dantesque guide to make your way through it. The world of ideas is a world of possessive spirits, and some of those spirits actually succeed in capturing their host. A 'shaman' as I am defining it is one who has enough strength in his own core not to get 'possessed', but the common man, let's face it, does not have this option. They are captured by one thing or another, but it sure isn't the 'spirit of truth'.

And you could say 'it is just a way to see it', but it just happens to be a very good representation, and one that is uniquely useful, and allows one to function on different levels.

"The true shaman knows himself and has a bag of psychological tricks to help someone if so inclined. Some might believe in their own mumbo jumbo. Do you?"

I believe that [three paragraphs blacked out]. And that is pretty much it, Diebert. I cannot express myself more clearly about it.

"The way you describe it makes it sound very difficult and exclusive, like a smoke blowing Wizard of Oz."

I guarantee you---I GUARANTEE YOU!---that most people, if you press them, have no way to locate themselves! To 'locate' themselves. They don't really know where they are, nor what they are doing there. They take everything at face value and their questioning rarely deepens. To break through the veils, my dear diligent Diebert, is a life work.

The most valuable thing one can have, I assert, is a useful map of the domain.

"Any big concept is versatile enough to fit the requirements of the conceptualizer. It has this mirror effect but seeing the many reflections doesn't mean one now understands the workings of the mirror itself and can avoid the confusing intoxicating effect it can have."

I said something more specific. I say that Christianity, because of its deep solar understructure, is just amazingly versatile.

You'll have to talk more about the 'workings of the mirror' (I am beginning to think you have pirated my correspondence course!). And please note that I outrightly mentioned the dangers of intoxication:

"The downside in that is that it can turn into an almost absurd superstitionism, and if it is inflected with psychological paranoia it can get very dark and very strange. It is part-and-parcel though of the social matrix and it is absurd to think it will go away."

[Relo]

Can anyone link me to a definitional layout of what QRS is? Also personal opinions of what you feel about it would be nice too if you would like.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But they have not gone through a process of 'shamanic initiation'. You see, Diebert, anyone who gets involved very deeply in ideas and knowing, provided they have some personal power, becomes a guide and a teacher.

Sure. But perhaps I see it one step further: it isn't only about getting involved in certain ideas or personal power. I see a more universal principle and speaking of teachers, Joseph Campbell has documented and explained the 'quest' in all its university and versatility. It's the rites of birth and death, rites of adulthood, the seasons (the whole calendar), the midlife crisis, the rebel cause and one could go on forever until the dawn and setting of time and consciousness itself.

A 'shaman' as I am defining it is one who has enough strength in his own core not to get 'possessed', but the common man, let's face it, does not have this option. They are captured by one thing or another, but it sure isn't the 'spirit of truth'.

The way I see it, one is always possessed, animated by forces beyond control to a certain extend. The question that could rise is if truth is such a force, some active principle (like lets say causation) that one could be possessed by. At least obsessed I suppose.

And you could say 'it is just a way to see it', but it just happens to be a very good representation, and one that is uniquely useful, and allows one to function on different levels.

In a more material, literal thinking, unhinged, more confused age I find the representation having lost its greatest value. Therefore I'm ready to put it at the cosmic trash bin of once powerful ideas to be mulled over by necrophiles only.

The most valuable thing one can have, I assert, is a useful map of the domain.

Be careful then not to confuse the map with the territory.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Relo:

Can anyone link me to a definitional layout of what QRS is?

Since David, Dan, and Kevin are indistinguishable in every way, QRS is a quick and unambiguous way of referring to the founders of the GF cult. By "borrowing" out-of-context passages from different philosophic traditions across the globe, they jointly created a hodge-podge, totally circular, justification for the worship of Otto Weininger penis.

[brokenhead]

Relo:

Can anyone link me to a definitional layout of what QRS is?

Since David, Dan, and Kevin are indistinguishable in every way, QRS is a quick and unambiguous way of referring to the founders of the GF cult. By "borrowing" out-of-context passages from different philosophic traditions across the globe, they jointly created a hodge-podge, totally circular, justification for the worship of Otto Weininger penis.

On the contrary, the philosophies jive but the philosophers I find quite distinct. If I know a post is by one of them, I can almost always tell which one.

[brokenhead]

How does "mass murder" evoke "pleasure?"

It is well known that having power over other people, such as killing them, can provide much pleasure to the person doing the killing.

"Believing in Jesus" is like mass murder in that it involves a killing of truth — a power over truth, which provides much pleasure.

Yeah, well-known among war criminals and other mass-murderers.

So believing in Jesus is killing the truth - a truth which you the lone hero are valiant enough to defend in the midst of all the rest of us fools. A truth, such as "killing people gives pleasure."

You are hopelessly twisted and full of shit, like a pus-filled colon of a bloated rotting corpse. A poisoned heart, indeed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Can anyone link me to a definitional layout of what QRS is?

Since David, Dan, and Kevin are indistinguishable in every way, QRS is a quick and unambiguous way of referring to the founders of the GF cult. By "borrowing" out-of-context passages from different philosophic traditions across the globe, they jointly created a hodge-podge, totally circular, justification for the worship of Otto Weininger penis.

Not a very good AJ imitation, I must say. But still funny, nevertheless.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So believing in Jesus is killing the truth

In a way that seems true to me if one understands the believing of something was what Jesus most certainly didn't want to convey. The whole idea was about direct experience and relationship only. One can debate about the what that would be experienced or related to but it didn't involve the usual faith, priests, texts, worship, emulating ritual and so on.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Diebert,

Not a very good AJ imitation, I must say.

I was using Nat's definition. I can't mimic AJ's word count.

[Steven Coyle]

Wine and wafers!

Or, Mushroom Tea, LSD.

[Alex Jacob]

"The way I see it, one is always possessed, animated by forces beyond control to a certain extend. The question that could rise is if truth is such a force, some active principal (like lets say causation) that one could be possessed by. At least obsessed I suppose."

It seems to me there is a way to get side-long glimpses into the nature of things. That can happen in visions, in dreams or perhaps in psychedelic experiences. Maybe it is true that some 'sages' have that experience, maybe they see behind the curtain (mirror). Some of them say they do, or imply they do. For the Ramakrishnas of the world, the glimpse of 'reality' is direct, and as a result of it 'the body falls away'. That is a pretty potent description. When you get around to really seeing the way things are, it is the vision itself that consumes you. If you live or die is no longer relevant. I had the impression that was Ramakrishna's experience. But, they convinced him to hang around.

Ramakrishna also said things like anyone at all could have that experience, or something like it, is they would only will it, if they only put their attention on it.

"In a more material, literal thinking, unhinged, more confused age I find the representation having lost its greatest value. Therefore I'm ready to put it at the cosmic trash bin of once powerful ideas to be mulled over by necrophiles only."

Well, that is fine. In the Afro-cuban traditions the 'trashbin' is---wouldn't you know it, Diebert!---one of Mercurius' favorite haunts. Doors, pathways, the roads...and the city dump all belong to Mercurius.

And what, in this material, confused age, you are pimping for the QRS-tian Magpies?!? That makes a great deal of sense...

;-)

[Iolaus]

David,

Yes, he's very much the ladies' man. I'm sure he loves entrancing young girl's minds with his yarns.

I love you too, you wicked man, but a lover of God nonetheless. How can I resist?

No doubt, if I were one of those twenty-something Latinas, I would succumb if he's at all good in Spanish, but as it is I am extracting something much better than affection and lust. Altho, as you well know, I've nothing against those.

Kevin,

"Believing in Jesus" is like mass murder in that it involves a killing of truth — a power over truth, which provides much pleasure.

In this case, the pleasure does not come from having power over truth at all. The pleasure comes from story and drama, but also to some extent, from having one's spiritual faculty activated. Tickled, at least.

Alex,

Opening oneself up to what we generally refer to as 'God', now that is something altogether different. If you go to far with that, there ain't no turning back. Must people never set out on that path because they intuitively recognize the price they'll have to pay.

Which is why, much to people's surprise, I see little difference between the religious and the nonreligious or atheist. It's not that they aren't different - they just aren't very different.

And may I say, AJ, that several of the things you have written - I am not even going to highlight them or comment on them - speak to me, to my inner world of the past few months in a way most uncanny. They have given me clarity and corroboration, that sort of synchronicity and subtle, intricate guidance of the divine cosmos you earlier mentioned. So this is why I was prompted to come back here at this time. You wrote them for me.

I am strengthened and invigorated. Thank you.

Well, all you lovers of Truth, you should know she is a demanding goddess and you will possess her to the extent you have radical humility. Have you that kind of courage?

Since David, Dan, and Kevin are indistinguishable in every way, QRS is a quick and unambiguous way of referring to the founders of the GF cult. By "borrowing" out-of-context passages from different philosophic traditions across the globe, they jointly created a hodge-podge, totally circular, justification for the worship of Otto Weininger penis.

But ya gotta love 'em for the dogged way they endure the praise of their admirers.

[edited one word]

[brokenhead]

Wine and wafers!

Or, Mushroom Tea, LSD.

I'll have a little bit of everything. No, wait - hold the wafers. I'm driving.

[brokenhead]

So believing in Jesus is killing the truth

In a way that seems true to me if one understands the believing of something was what Jesus most certainly didn't want to convey. The whole idea was about direct experience and relationship only. One can debate about the what that would be experienced or related to but it didn't involve the usual faith, priests, texts, worship, emulating ritual and so on.

I think Jesus was saying listen to your (the) Father. "Faith" and "belief" are words we use to express what is going on inside. I don't think Christ wanted to establish a church based on empty rites and ceremonies. I think many if not all priests are relieved that people believe in the rites and ceremonies instead of believing in God. That's what I loathe about the clergy in general. At the same time, I will admit that my loathing has kept me distant from the clergy for most of my life. I'm sure they do good deeds for people at times. The same way that even the worst baseball teams in the league still manage to win a third of their games.

[David Quinn]

Well, all you lovers of Truth, you should know she is a demanding goddess and you will possess her to the extent you have radical humility. Have you that kind of courage?

Totally agree with that. But we might have different ideas on what this means. What do you mean by it?

-

[Tomas]

Wine and wafers!

Or, Mushroom Tea, LSD.

I'll have a little bit of everything. No, wait - hold the wafers. I'm driving.

Very good, brokenhead.



"Electric Wine" is near the top of my list...

I suppose all of the above but I'd place the wafers over the eyes - should the cops pull me over - I'd nonchalantly reply, "I'm a day trippin' (visioning) on Kevin Solway's avatar." Not sure what I'd tell the officer should this occurrence evolve during the twilight hours.

Note: When I ride with the cops here in California, we see so much bizarro antics the mind doesn't want to go there.


Tomas

.

[Alex Jacob]

Wine and wafers!

Or, Mushroom Tea, LSD.

Or as some toddlers in the backseat once called out:

'amburgers an' wootbeer! 'amburgers an' wootbeer!'
__________________________________________________

[Eclipse]

Hi Alex, a normal mushroom eating non-genius here trying to grasp what you said.

Does the shamanic journey begin when one realizes one is in a state of total contradiction, and then goes through the contradiction to see the illusion?

For example, if one is objectively f*cked up, does one then fully accept both that one is unable to distinguish reality versus that there is no reality?

Or, if one is subjectively f*cked up, does one then fully accept both that one is a sinner unable to distinguish good from bad versus that there is no good or bad?

Just trying to get a start.

Thanks for what you put so far, and if my questions need explaining, please let me know.

[Alex Jacob]

Well, to quote my bienhechor in these matters:

"Everything in spiritual life begins through the prayers one makes to and on 'the roads of life'. The most powerful and basic offering is one's prayers, which go forth into the world and into one's own self, and completely alters the established dynamic. One sincere, strong prayer can change destiny. The best 'mood' for prayer is simple and direct but always with real feeling.

"The prayers offered on and to 'the roads' changes everything, because 'everything' needs permission to act in us and for us. If we stay locked within our 'problems' it is because we never asked for those problems to be solved.

"Prayers are 'magical formulas' that actually go out into the cosmos, into the world, and then they 'resound': they echo back to us in waves or octaves. If one keeps praying, the waves and octaves are always returning.

("Our prayers bring us, time and time again, to important 'gates'. The 'gates' are impasses, difficult areas, bridges that we can cross. If we have been paying attention ('following the omens') we will recognize what is required to pass through the 'gate'. If not, we have to go back and prepare again 'to cross'. Prayer is a 'tool' that allows one to move through more 'gates', more quickly. Some people have just one 'gate' to pass through in their life but are always failing the test. 'Reading omens', that is, listening for the response from the spirit, enables one to understand the nature of the 'gates' one has to cross. The more one understands the more fortified one is).

"What 'echoes back' is 'the vision'. The vision is a giant nexus of potency, a map, that usually comes in a lump or a number of lumps. It happens in a limited period of time, but what is received is giant and usually takes a long while to sort out. The vision can come in one moment but it takes a lifetime to work out.

"The ailments we suffer from, and that the vision 'cures', are usually the ailments that we have some ability to heal in others."

[Kevin Solway]

So believing in Jesus is killing the truth

Certainly it is, if "believing in Jesus" means believing unreservedly that Jesus actually existed, or that he was the only Son of God and the only way to God-awareness.

On the other hand, if "believing in Jesus" means believing that one should be perfectly aware of truth at all times, and always perfectly truthful, then there's nothing wrong with it. But I don't know many people who interpret "believing in Jesus" in that intelligent fashion.

a truth which you the lone hero are valiant enough to defend in the midst of all the rest of us fools.

I don't know why you think I might be the only one. History is scattered with thousands of people who have conveyed the same message as myself.

A truth, such as "killing people gives pleasure."

If you don't understand that killing people can give pleasure to the person doing the killing then you haven't tried to understand the psychology of killers, and you haven't looked into your own self. All of our ancestors were killers. That's why we exist now and those who competed with us are now dead. There is a killer inside every one of us, as a product of our formation.

[brokenhead]

brokenhead: So believing in Jesus is killing the truth
Kevin Solway: Certainly it is, if "believing in Jesus" means believing unreservedly that Jesus actually existed, or that he was the only Son of God and the only way to God-awareness.

You have a dim view of the mental capacities of your fellow humans, dimmer even than my own.

I believe that Jesus actually existed. The "unreservedly" qualifier you add is almost humorous. Either he did or he did not. What could reservations possibly achieve? For you or for anyone else? Are you waiting for a videotape to turn up?

Who said Jesus was the only Son of God? Clearly, if God exists, then we are all his children. And I certainly don't believe he is the only way to God-awareness. There are many. I believe he subsumes all of them.

brokenhead: ...a truth which you the lone hero are valiant enough to defend in the midst of all the rest of us fools.
Kevin: I don't know why you think I might be the only one. History is scattered with thousands of people who have conveyed the same message as myself.

Well I don't think that, obviously. It is nice to hear you say this, however.

Kevin: If you don't understand that killing people can give pleasure to the person doing the killing then you haven't tried to understand the psychology of killers, and you haven't looked into your own self. All of our ancestors were killers. That's why we exist now and those who competed with us are now dead. There is a killer inside every one of us, as a product of our formation.

You are wrong here, and this is really a very important point. I have looked inside myself every bit as relentlessly as you have looked inside yourself, and if it were possible to ascertain who has looked the harder, I frankly think you have nothing on me.

"All of our ancestors were killers." Patently absurd. My father was a physician, a healer not a killer. I don't even have to go back more than one generation to refute you. But of course, you are referring to pre-civilized times. You should say so. The truth is, most of our ancestors never killed anybody. You need to re-evaluate your motivations, Kevin, to find out why you are making such factually incorrect statements.

We do indeed carry the genetic results of evolution and are very much animals by heredity. Yet there is no evidence that other animals kill simply for pleasure. On the contrary, evidence seems to indicate that in the wild, an animal will kill to fulfill a need, the immediate survival of himself or another animal which shares as much of his DNA as possible.

You think I am avoiding the truth in some fashion? I think you are holding on to the grimmest possible outlook and calling it the truth, and you are doing it so that nobody will try and take it away from you because after all, who would want it?

The psychology of killers is something that I have indeed been fascinated by. But all the evidence points to how aberrant their behavior is. People are definitely more capable of bloodlust than nonhuman species, I will grant you. But if you are arguing that that is our true nature and denying it is avoiding "the truth," you are quite mistaken. Animals do not need to be taught ethics in order not to kill simply for the pleasure of it. People, however, do need to be taught. If a child grew up in the wild - a Tarzan - he would kill when necessary, as the wild animals do. However, within a human environment, he needs guidance, as society by nature makes us all vulnerable to animal urges. Humans need values. If they were in the wild, they would pick up the values of the wild, as the Native Americans did, who managed to remain in balance with Nature for thousands of years. The "pleasure of killing" to which you refer is not the echo of our genetic heritage, but a much more modern phenomenon. It exists where society is locally in a state of decay. It is a symptom of relative sophistication, as you should know if you understood history. The blood sports of the Roman gladiators came about because Rome was an advanced society. The same is true for the atrocities of the twentieth century, such as the Holocaust. Germany became decadent. This has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with social mores, with the fabric of society fraying all around. The technical capabilities in weaponry, communication, transporation, and information-processing grew faster than society's ability to rein in political movements, which are all power-driven.

I guess what I am trying to say is if there is in fact a killer inside every one of us, why is it in there and not out here?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I guess what I am trying to say is if there is in fact a killer inside every one of us, why is it in there and not out here?

Conscience.

The criminal killers, rapists and sadists out there haven't any of it or at least in a way lesser degree.

Nature is cruel but not dispassionately so. Following instincts is interpreted as 'good' or 'pleasure' depending on the capacity of experiencing such states at all in the animal. Limiting oneself to killing prey or competition is a matter of efficiency, not morality.

Humanity's complex social structure has developed a restrain on the instincts and the cruelty of direct power exchanges. But the power or related energy cannot be really restrained, it can only be re-directed, exchanged into some other coinage. Our civilized society and its luxurious freedom and wealth is founded on blood especially of the innocents, animals and humans alike. The fact that we lost track of the power exchange and disassociate with the cruelty or killing sprees at the other side of the globe, or even at the cattle kill floor at the other side of town, doesn't mean the killer and its pleasures have disappeared.

I'd see the killer or cruel, pain and death giving instincts as internalized and disguised. Perhaps for the better though but even mentioning them becomes taboo! Our morality survives by washing hands in fountains of innocence. No wonder the utmost need for redemption and forgiveness that is experienced since the empire rose.

[Kevin Solway]

I believe that Jesus actually existed.

The fact is we can never know for sure whether Jesus actually existed or whether he is a fictional character. So if a person believes "unreservedly" that Jesus definitely, really existed, without any doubts, then they are murdering truth and are mindless killers.

Who said Jesus was the only Son of God?

99.99% of Christians would believe that Jesus was the only Son of God. Surely you know this and don't need to ask me. If you told them that the Buddha was also a Son of God, and possibly a superior one, they might just kill you for that.

"All of our ancestors were killers." Patently absurd.

I can see into people's hearts. And I know what I see.

My father was a physician, a healer not a killer.

I visited the dentist the other day and was charged $360 for 15 minutes work. That's more than two week's of my income for 15 minutes of his precious time. Is the dentist too a healer and not a killer?

The truth is, most of our ancestors never killed anybody.

You don't need to kill anybody to be a killer. You just need to be a person who is made to kill and has the ready capacity to kill given the right circumstances.

Everyone is a practicing killer of truth to some extent. Killers of God. Killers of Jesus.

Yet there is no evidence that other animals kill simply for pleasure.

Animals kill because they are programmed to kill. A domestic cat will catch a mouse, play with it while it struggles for its life, then kill it and then just leave it lying there without eating it.

Killer whales do the same thing with seals, when they aren't hungry.

The psychology of killers is something that I have indeed been fascinated by. But all the evidence points to how aberrant their behavior is.

I just watched a documentary about American hunters who go to Africa and pay tens of thousands of dollars to shoot virtually any animal that moves. It's really not all that hard to kill a zebra when you're armed with a high-powered rifle. But they love doing it anyway. Their behaviour is not aberrant.

The behaviour of the Germans in the second world war was not aberrant. The Popes who ordered the deaths of thousands of people just because they weren't Catholic were not aberrant. The Islamic suicide bombers are not aberrant. People who believe in the death penalty are not aberrant.

All this is just normal human behaviour.

Re decadence, etc. A large part of the pleasure in killing is simply the pleasure of power, and power is pleasurable no matter what stage society is in — decadent or not. For as long as power is pleasurable, it will be pleasurable to kill.

I guess what I am trying to say is if there is in fact a killer inside every one of us, why is it in there and not out here?

The killer is out here. Whenever you see a person turn their back on the truth, and whenever you see them take pleasure in power, or even in the power of being powerless, you are seeing a killer.

Diebert says that "conscience" stops us from physically killing others. I say the main reason is circumstance. People are not developed enough to have conscience.

[brokenhead]

Nature is cruel but not dispassionately so. Following instincts is interpreted as 'good' or 'pleasure' depending on the capacity of experiencing such states at all in the animal. Limiting oneself to killing prey or competition is a matter of efficiency, not morality.

This was more or less my point. I said that animals do not need to be taught ethics. I was assuming it was obvious that they cannot be taught ethics; my point was that humans do need to be taught ethics.

Humanity's complex social structure has developed a restrain on the instincts and the cruelty of direct power exchanges

The power exchanges were what they were and are what they are. Cruelty may have been a part of them. Often times, it still is, only now perhaps with less bloodletting. So has simple survival been a part of them. So have greed and hunger. So have fear and ignorance. So have bravery and genius.

Our civilized society and its luxurious freedom and wealth is founded on blood especially of the innocents, animals and humans alike.

Civilization is indeed founded on blood. And on sweat and on tears. It is also founded on courage and inspiration, on strength and determination. And a good deal of it is founded on faith. To say that it is founded on blood even in part, however, is not to say that this blood was extracted for pleasure, which is the point we are discussing. Rather by your own admission, this blood was spilled for a purpose. But I will agree that to the extent that freedom has come to mean the pursuit of luxury is the extent to which it has become decadent.

The fact that we lost track of the power exchange and disassociate with the cruelty or killing sprees at the other side of the globe, or even at the cattle kill floor at the other side of town, doesn't mean the killer and its pleasures have disappeared.

It was well-known that the executioner who enjoyed his job was not particularly good at it in a technical sense. A cruel one would not strive to make a hanging quick and efficient but would have the condemned shuddering in agony at the end of the rope. And I will wager that those who work in a slaughter house are probably glad they have a job, but derive no pleasure from the blood-letting.

Diebert, I think you and I are looking at the same society, but I entirely disagree with your Aztecan sensibilities. There is a reason the killing-floor is on the other side of town and the killing fields on the other side of the world. I do not claim civilization is as advanced as it is going to get, however. Maybe the glass is both half empty and half full. After all, it has to be, doesn't it?