Hello Alasdair! Many apologies if I came across as belligerent; I was upset and heated when I wrote my response to this story, and my agitation I probably did not realize how inconsiderate I was being.
Hi:) That's okay.
I did not so much think your in/outro was bad, so much as I was disappointed when you did not provide some badly needed balance to this story. Usually you provide something of a counterpoint or deeper insight, but in this case you seemed to simply carry the author’s flag.
Well, sometimes cheerleading an author is something I feel motivated to and this one pushed a couple of my buttons. Plus I sometimes worry I go so far outside the ballpark that I need to tie the odd outro to the actual story:)
I realize the irony in criticizing you for being shallow, then providing my own shallow rebuttal. I was just trying to shorten an already long rant. Let me give you my counterpoint: You suggest that in a “better world” there “shouldn’t be any” charities, because there would be no disasters. You say “things should be better, for everyone.” I think the major flaw in your reasoning here is that you are ascribing moral characteristics to a universe which has none. You seem to describe the disasters as “bad” – but that is a theistic concept grounded in Western religious thought. Nature’s actions are not bad: they simply are. This is exactly what the revenant in the story failed to grasp. Her death was not “bad” nor was it “tragic” and it certainly was no one’s fault: it simply WAS. I had been hoping you would illuminate this, or a similar concept to our readers.
Ah, Western religious thought. That'll be the Anglican/Catholic/Spiritualist upbringing talking. I'm actually working on approaching things from a different viewpoint to that.
Much of human suffering results from our outrage over the actions of a universe which makes no moral judgments – the universe makes no sense to us, only because we expect it to make sense. I had hoped you would see the tragedy in the ghost’s selfishness and put it in perspective for us: natural disasters are bad to us humans, but to the cosmos they simply ARE. The ghost needed to realize that her death was not the result of a moral judgment, and ergo it deserved no righteous retribution in return. The ghost (and all of humanity) need(s) to accept that what we see as “natural tragedies” are simply part of Nature’s grand scheme – they are not cruel punishments upon us. We should help the survivors, mourn the dead, but most importantly ACCEPT that the world is the way it is and that Nature both destroys and creates without holding one higher than the other. To wish for a world without this cycle is to live in a state of denial and disharmony. Ergo, we have invented superstitions like “gods” or “spirits” to explain how these terrible (to us) things happen. We ignore the absolutely commonplace fact that life is just as meaningless as death – and, ergo, just as important. One must realize that if everything is meaningless and unimportant, the reverse is also true – everything is just as meaningful, and just as important. Your birth is on equal footing with the genesis of the Pleadies Cluster. Your death carries all the cosmic weight of a supernova.
Those last two lines in particular are fascinating and actually rather beautiful. Thanks for that.
I do not mean to be rude here, but I felt your outro was solidly grounded in theistic, moral, Christian thought. Where disasters are seen as negative, sinful and undesirable. In a sense, they are actually positive, glorious and desireable: they allow the cycle of life to continue, they make more life where there was none, and they provide the strife which is just as important as the peace. But, in truth, they (and Nature) are none of these things: they simply ARE. Ergo, it is absurd to judge them.
True and like I say that's my upbringing. I think the point that interests me about this is what happens when we don't try and ascribe meaning, when we try and accept what is. That's actually rather alien to me.
I feel for you and your family, I truly do. I am not here to offend, but only to offer counterpoint. You view your friends’ deaths as “pointless” because your worldview demands everything have a point. This ties into what I was saying earlier: disasters, to you, are bad because they MUST have a point. And, since they are negative to humans, their point must be negative – their existence is negative. Life does not have a “point” – life simply is. Enjoy it while it is here. Keep your friends memories in your heart and cherish them, but to not rail against “capricious” fate for taking them from you. Simply accept that their lives are over now – neither for good, nor for bad, neither important to Nature, nor unimportant – but important to you.
This brings me to my final point: in the universe, no thing is of greater or less importance than another. No thing holds more or less value. To Nature, the death of Jesus Christ was just as unremarkable as the birth of a gnat; the birth of Hitler just as remarkable as the death of a galaxy. But in the Temple of your mind, your Will is absolute: you alone determine what is important and what is unimportant. You alone determine what is Right, and what is Wrong. Those things are not inherent, and they are not for Nature to decide. If you declare the death of a thousand Indonesians in tsunami unimportant, then they are if you declare them important then it will be. But only to you. Not to the universe, not to Nature.
In this manner, we can see that the Will alone determines the shape of the moral sphere. Man is center of his solar system, he is “heliocentric force on two legs.” To allow the doctrines of others (be they Jehova or Christ, Zues or Olympus, Muhammad or Allah, Buddha or Lao Tzu) to determine or shape your course of action is utter folly. Life and death are both opposite sides of the same coin. Nature determines the result of the toss, but only you determine where, when and to who it is important.
And assign meaning as needed, or not. Everything's relative, you shape the world as you choose and, like I say, I find the idea of changing that world view, of taking a step back attractive. Stuff to think about.
Apologies for the length of this response: it turned out to be something of a dissertation on my world-view, rather than a plain rebuttal.
Nothing wrong with that.
I am not a nihilist. I do not hold that life has no value or purpose. I will not for one moment pretend that the loss of one’s loved ones is irrelevant. One should always fight to preserve himself and those who are so near and dear to him that they are a part of himself. But one must also accept loss. Failing to protect a loved one is a terror, but death itself? Let that not be a Terror in your mind. Be fearful of losing them whilst they are here, but once they are gone, just keep their memories close and accept. Do not shout “Why did this happen?” You will only drive yourself crazy – the universe has no answer.
Oddly a priest told me almost exactly the same thing last year. It's a laudable ideal and, like I say, it's one that due to some of the things I've experienced, a worldview I suspect is cut off from me.
I apologize if I have offended you: it was not my intent. I just seek to remind you (and our ghost) that the endings are just as equal and important as the beginnings.
Oh you haven't offended me. You're clearly passionate about your beliefs and I wanted to find out why. Thanks for laying that out, reminds me a lot of Taoism.
Thank you for responding and for indulging me in my rant. Apologies if I have seemed mean or heartless, again none of that is my intent. I hope I have given you something to think about.
And don’t worry, I enjoy about 99% percent of your in/outros – one or two is bound to disappoint sometimes!
You certainly have:) And hey, you didn't like two out of the two hundred I've done so far. That's a pretty good batting average:)