"New Song for the New Age"

Seeker

Well-Known Member
It's often very effective to use either DuckDuckGo or Google search with the added term 'site:tribwatch.com' to restrict the search to the specified website. Even at PF, this often works better than the built-in search function.
Thanks so much for the tip, Jerry, it works much better with looking for stuff in the stream-of-consciousness writing style of "John", as he calls himself. As you must have read by now, his introduction is very understandable, but after that it gradually gets much worse over the years, especially when trying to find something and remember it afterwards, as I did. OK, I THINK I have it right this time (lol)! He thinks the surname "Fauci" is related to "Faux", which he traces back to the French "Vaux", and Perigord, France (where "Fauchy" is also found). My own digging shows this region became Plantagenet in 1152, with the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine to the future King Henry II, son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, and grandson of Fulk of Anjou, King of Jerusalem ("infamous" Fulks/Plantagenets). "Faux" can also mean "fake" (a phony name?), and is also spelled as Fawkes (as with Guy of the "infamous" Gunpowder Plot). The falcon crest (unintended pun) on the Faux/Fawkes coat of arms could trace back to Fulk I the Red Falcon, Count of Anjou, the first Count of Anjou of that line named Fulk. So if "Fauci" is related to "Faux", he may come from that line instead (or be kin to it), and not the Italian Fulco one. John is still pointing to the Fauci origin described in the House of Names coat of arms, though, which has them going back from Sicily to Venice, which would be the home of the Venetian Black Nobility. As far as "Antichrist" is concerned, he says Fauci is part of the Democratic Deep Swamp Antichrist clique in Washington, DC, along with Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. John still does not try to predict whom the actual Antichrist will be, as he originally stated in his Introduction, though he now calls Trump the False Prophet, and says Biden has been replaced by a double as President, someone also yet unknown (I am tempted to say by the "unknown" Antichrist ;)) . John updates his site every Monday, so today there will be a new posting to read. Looks like some of it is about that 2029 Apophis asteroid, that he seems to connect with Revelation. Uh Oh, he is also connecting "STANLEY" with Apophis, and "POPE" again, besides stating that "Fauchys look like Fulks of Anjou". This website is my ultimate exercise in concentration, if nothing else!
.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Any Catholic can do as much evil as they want, and go to Confession the next day to wash it away in the Blood.
I must "confess", that if I were Roman Catholic, I would NEVER go to Confession, and put myself under the power of another human being, priest or not, by telling him my most blackmailable crimes. To me, it would be like putting the sword of Damocles over my own head.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
This tribulation watcher: http://tribwatch.com, who warns of other "nothing-burger" tribulation watchers? ;)

Although name matching is a basis for speculation & further research, the problem is that virtually everyone in the Western world has a surname, which is inevitably shared with some famous person. This doesn't prove a close family relation.
Speaking of close family relations, John the Tribulation Watcher does "confess" that his mother was a Masci, whom he says descend from the Agrippa/Herod branch of the Antichristers. Of course John repudiated that long ago heritage. House of Names says only that Masci originated in the Piedmont, which came under the control of the House of Savoy, who certainly do figure in conspiracy history as "Real Players". https://www.houseofnames.com/masci-family-crest#:~:text=Early Origins of the Masci family The surname,and Vercelli
A medieval Masci became Pope as Nicholas IV - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Nicholas_IV
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
Are you saying that Jerry worships the Beast? ;)
Don't we all have that tendency? But any Seeker of (ideological) enlightenment is making the attempt to break free, I'd say

If the Holy See is literally the Holy MOTHER Church, then Pope Francis shouldn't be the head of it either, and we should all be worshipping an ancient Great Mother Goddess. Of course, this would lead back to the whole heretical notion of Mary Magdalene as the Christian incarnation of that goddess, in opposition to Rome. If you chose that path, does "Marcilla Magdalene" have a nice ring to it?
ROFL! If I be called, then may the Lord give me strength to answer. However, I strive to be more of a Little Flower, reliant on the elevator which is our Lord as my deus ex machina.

In any event, isn't there another Mary who is already the Queen of Heaven, and Queen of the Universe? Mater misericordiae!

As to the gendered question, the clergy acts in personae Christi, and is therefore a man (or perhaps "a person assigned male at birth" - this question has not been settled yet, to my knowledge), married to the Church as bride.

... which reminds me that I need to ask my pastor again about a spiritual advisor...

I actually did watch Colbert's word salad. I submit that he absolutely Gnows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that gravity always pulls objects downwards. His attempt to convince himself otherwise (aside from being an utter failure) is also exactly the sort of self-gaslighting absurdity that Charles Eisenstein warned about. All this in a pathetic attempt to curry favor with the Catholic Church.
What do you think he gets from the Catholic Church that's worth him devoting so much time to its mission?

Pneumatikos Iesous is nothing more than another fraudulent expression of Roman wartime propaganda.
You deny that "spiritual salvation" exists? We are unredeemably-damned souls?

"Do what thou wilt" is the OTO creed, which does not contradict the Catholic de facto policy that you can do whatever you want, and automagically get forgiven. But this OTO / Catholic view is different from the ULC expectation that its ministers "do only that which is right".
But all three profess that one cannot avoid the consequences of ones actions - I'm not sure if you got that about the first two

It seems to me that there are any number of false mainstream narratives (Jesus, JFK, 9-11, covid-19) which are vulnerable to analytical pickaxes. This site's broad approach was conceived to promote a valid alternative historical meta-narrative, as opposed to the many problematic rabbit-holes.
Yes, I suppose there is a kind of "chicken and egg" thing with "if you didn't trust the source then you could doubt the story, or if you could disbelieve the story, then maybe you wouldn't trust the source." I guess my sense is that people's faith in institutions is as low as I've ever seen it, whereas people require SOME kind of story. Which I guess leads to your next point about what is the replacement meta-narrative.

Could it be that we've reached the point of the recursive meta-narrative? That the meta-narrative is about the change from one meta-narrative to the next, over time?

However much I may delude myself, I'm not so deluded as to think I can arrive at some "absolute, objective truth." I choose the Church's meta-narrative (within the framework of the meta-meta-narrative) because I like it. It appeals to me due primarily to my personal history with it, as well as the level of development it has had over time, and its capacity to act as a bridge to relate to others - as it also relates to so many of them on this personal level.

The Church presents history as "salvation history" - that the human story is one of God ransoming us from sin, or to put it more directly: that the source of all, produces an underlying logic to existence that leads, over time, to a removal of less desirable possibilities in favor of an overall positive evolutionary outcome.

If PF is not "salvation history," what is it? At times, it seems more like "condemned history." Which, I guess, would be consistent with denying the possibility of a pneumatikos iesous :: shrugs ::

I must "confess", that if I were Roman Catholic, I would NEVER go to Confession, and put myself under the power of another human being, priest or not, by telling him my most blackmailable crimes. To me, it would be like putting the sword of Damocles over my own head.
But would he even care? And if it was that bad (and for whatever good this may do in lowering your resistance to coming into full communion with the Holy See), you can go to a different parish where the priest won't even know who you are - it's every bit as valid of an absolution.

Priests are human, and therefore a mixed bag, but a good priest has an innate desire to reconcile a supplicant to their Heavenly Father, as a good Family Therapist would want to do for a person and their mortal father

So now you're joking too, like Jerry? I found Stephen Colbert, but no Marcilla Smith. ???
When I went to the ULC website, it said that their search feature was currently down. I may need to UL my credentials here for safekeeping. For the record, I am currently ordained by the ULC, the First Church of Atheism, and by the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic - "We don't know, and we don't care"

---------------------------------------------------------

Getting back to naming names as they relate to the "New Song for the New Age," "Meta" and more generally "the metaverse" have really started to gain mainstream traction just since this thread was started. While Mr. Zuckerberg's vision has gotten the most attention so far, I'm not convinced it will last - I think he's a little too thirsty for it.

My money crypto is on Microsoft. MS Teams - as far as I can tell - won the "COVID Videoconference War," and their foray into the metaverse (assuming that name sticks) is slated to be integrated with Teams. Also, they are looking more at AR over VR for the time being, which I think will make adoption more of a fluid transition.

Could this make Bill Gates the Titus Flavius of our Third Age? And just how far ahead of myself am I getting?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Marcilla,

What do you think he gets from the Catholic Church that's worth him devoting so much time to its mission?
I do believe you've caught me in a contradiction. Way up above at post #47, I said:

You're asking me to figure out which public figures are genuinely delusional, vs. which ones are cynically cashing checks? Aside from being an interesting problem in remote psychoanalysis -- what difference does it make?
...but now here we are, 20 posts later, and we're still trying to analyze Colbert.

How much time does Colbert dedicate to the Catholic Church mission? And for that matter, what is the Catholic Church mission? Aside from achieving total domination over the entire planet and eliminating all infidels, that is?...

However much I may delude myself, I'm not so deluded as to think I can arrive at some "absolute, objective truth."
Spoken like a true Bayesian.

I choose the Church's meta-narrative (within the framework of the meta-meta-narrative) because I like it.
But your choice (based on personal preference) doesn't change the objective truth. And we do agree that objective truth does exist, even though it's not fully available to us mortals?

If PF is not "salvation history," what is it?
Speaking only for myself: I don't know how to predict how things will turn out.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You deny that "spiritual salvation" exists? We are unredeemably-damned souls?
'Pneumatikos Iesous' translates as 'Spiritual Jesus', right? What does a fictional ancient Roman character have to do with salvation or damnation? For that matter, what do you even mean by salvation or damnation?

[OTO, Catholicism, ULC] But all three profess that one cannot avoid the consequences of ones actions - I'm not sure if you got that about the first two
Under OTO, the theory is that 'what thou wilt' could only include good things. So there should be nothing for anti-Satanists to worry about.

But -- isn't the Catholic ultimately saved from original sin, midlife sin and even deliberate sin, as long as repented and confessed? What am I missing?
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
How much time does Colbert dedicate to the Catholic Church mission? And for that matter, what is the Catholic Church mission? Aside from achieving total domination over the entire planet and eliminating all infidels, that is?...
Yes, of course. But isn't that the mission (however unstated) of every organization? I don't think we would expect that Postflaviana was created to give total domination over the planet to those infidels (infidel to the PF truths, that is) and eliminate all Postflavians.

The stated mission of the church is not that far off from what you say. I won't print the full mission statement of the USCCB, but it begins, "Evangelizing is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists to evangelize." This is consistent with the "Great Commission": "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." --Matthew 28:19-20a (NABRE). The post-modern sentiment of anti-colonialism is not supported by the scripture (even if the abuses would be).

But my point was not specifically about the nature of the mission, as it is a statement about Mr. Colbert's behavior generally. He's rather famously known for not only consistently participating in the Mass, but also volunteering to lead prayer groups, etc. I can't see a compelling reason for him to do so, beyond his desire to do so for its own sake. If it was just about the attention, he already has a far better vehicle for that. If he was getting some kind of favor in return from the church, why is he such a minority in Hollywood? He'd be better off joining Scientology, seems to me. (Or maybe just taking an improv class?)

But your choice (based on personal preference) doesn't change the objective truth. And we do agree that objective truth does exist, even though it's not fully available to us mortals?
Ah, but DO we agree? There's a school of thought which I believe is called Radical Constructivism which points out that so far as we can tell "objectively," the human nervous system is designed to "fill in the blanks" where there is missing information. In a... Bayesian sense, wouldn't this make it 50-50 that there is an objective - or even coherent - reality to be observed in the first place? Meanwhile, if we assume we are observing a shared, objective reality, we can be (near) 100% certain that if it isn't a consistent, coherent, shared, objective reality, it would still seem that way to each of us individually (assuming there are multiple individuals making up an "us").

One of the last interviews given by Heinz von Foerster (father of the internet, second order cybernetics, etc.) was for The Net (recommended for any "serious" conspiracy theory buff). In addition to predicting the post-truth future which is our present day reality, he makes - what I find to be - a useful distinction between things we can know and things we can't.
For the first, he gives the example of looking up a person's birthday on their driver license - while there could be an error or a forgery, there's relatively broad acceptance of the facts as presented. As an example of the second, he offers the origin of the universe, which could be an explosion 14 billion years ago, a bored God playing with clay, or something to do with a turtle (or FSM, SBUH, of course). He says the proliferation of so many "truths" is an unavoidable consequence of there being too much data available for it all to be included in any one theory. Therefore, people get to believe whatever they want - whichever story they like best. The documentarian, alarmed by this madness, cries out, "but what about reality?!?" To which Mr. von Foerster replies, "where is reality? Can you show it to me?"

Welcome to the post-post-modernism of meta-modernism :)

'Pneumatikos Iesous' translates as 'Spiritual Jesus', right? What does a fictional ancient Roman character have to do with salvation or damnation? For that matter, what do you even mean by salvation or damnation?
I would say that's a part translation/part transliteration. A consistent transliteration would be "pneumatic Jesus" (which is certainly an album title in some universe), whereas a consistent translation would be "spiritual salvation."

Our salvation - according to the idea - is from sin. It is a metaphorical image based on the idea of servitude, born in an economy in which many people were sl@ves, and they served one household (gentile) or another.

Adam and Eve were created into God's family, and given free reign in his garden. But they rejected his Lordship, and therefore chose the Lordship of sin, instead. Therefore, all of us - their offspring - are born in bondage to sin. And what do we get in exchange for the work we do for sin? "The wages of sin is death."

How do we free ourselves from this bondage, then? There was another idea at the time, which is that of a "redeemer." The Book of Ruth is centered around this relationship of the kinsman-redeemer who - following the proper customs and protocols governing the transactions - can redeem - in this case - Ruth, taking her as his wife.

Along these lines, our Brother and Lord Jesus came to redeem His bride - the Church - which is us. He is unblemished by sin so that He is a sufficient sacrifice, in his offering, and also that He is not, Himself, in bondage to sin, therefore on a footing to make payment for and to redeem us.

"Sin" - or harmatia (I believe) in the original - is "missing the mark" (I've heard it was originally an archery term). Therefore - we could say, more mundanely, that people are born missing the point of living, and that our lives lack spirit - or the right one, at least. Fortunately, we have logos (not available to the other animals) through which we can grow, therefore being of better spirits, and therefore not just surviving, but really living life to the fullest.

But where would be the fun in that? I mean, how many Q's would have shown up to look for the risen JFK Jr. if they hadn't had to decipher the code?

But -- isn't the Catholic ultimately saved from original sin, midlife sin and even deliberate sin, as long as repented and confessed? What am I missing?
Spiritually saved, but still subject to temporal consequences. Consider the two crucified on either side of our Lord, where the one mocks him for not using His power to free them, whereas the other recognizes His guilt. Our Lord tells the second that he shall join Him in paradise. An extreme and unlikely example, but not unlike real life examples we have of people who have a conversion of heart, accepting their sentence, and find ways - even within the confines of prison - to serve others, and in doing so, free themselves from the sin of stewing in their own bitterness, and regain life, by dying to the life they once had
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, of course. But isn't that the mission (however unstated) of every organization?
Not PF!! We are perfectly happy to co-exist with all manner of Pastafarians, and even those who follow the IPU.

I don't think we would expect that Postflaviana was created to give total domination over the planet to those infidels (infidel to the PF truths, that is) and eliminate all Postflavians.
It does seem that the moderator here is willing to give considerable space (if hopefully not total domination) to the infidels to PF truth. Why oh why does this page attract Fascists and Catholics?

[Colbert] He's rather famously known for not only consistently participating in the Mass, but also volunteering to lead prayer groups, etc.
So he's more of a Matthew 5:14-16 kind of guy, rather than a Matthew 6:4-6 kind of guy? I can't say for sure whether he would get better perks and better ratings if he converted to Scientology, but I'm quite certain that converting to Postflavian would be a career ending move for him.

Surprise Surprise!! Miles W. Mathis thinks Colbert is crypto Jewish. I can't make any sense of it, maybe Seeker can confirm or deny.

http://mileswmathis.com/colbert.pdf

[Objective reality] Ah, but DO we agree?
It seems we don't, but I'm not convinced that you can rely on Radical Constructivism to make your point. To the contrary, doesn't Radical Constructivist philosophy imply that even if Objective Reality doesn't exist, it would be impossible for any thinking organism to discover or even conceive of its (non) existence?

Claiming that we lack any sufficiently direct experience of the Origins of the Universe to form any reliable opinion about the course of events, is very different from claiming that there is no correctly constructed narrative.

For that matter, what do you even mean by salvation or damnation?
I should know better than to ask such a leading question. Practically begging for a sermon, eh? This orthodox Catholic answer of yours doesn't make much sense. It exploits the punning semantic confusion between Iesous (the proper name, english 'Jesus') vs. Iesous (the noun meaning 'salvation') to imply that this fictional character is making some sort of a slave purchase deal with the Devil (another fictional character).

Rick would rightly have seen this as nothing more than a metaphor of a Roman slave master trying to convince his 'property' that his situation is somehow improved from the days when the slave master was Egyptian or Hebrew.

Consider the two crucified on either side of our Lord, where the one mocks him for not using His power to free them, whereas the other recognizes His guilt. Our Lord tells the second that he shall join Him in paradise.
What kind of example is that??? The first robber didn't repent of his sins, or confess, so of course he's going to hell. What does that have anything to do with The Godfather? Are you saying that Al Pacino didn't go to heaven, even if he repented and confessed each and every Sunday?
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
Why oh why does this page attract Fascists and Catholics?
Some would wonder what is the difference, but not this Anarcho-Catholic Internationalist, of course.

And if I may be forgiven for giving a literal answer to a rhetorical question: speaking for myself, I found the site because this was the place where conversations were happening that I thought (and think) should be (and will be) happening in the church (and, since finding this website, have happened in at least three churches - for whatever victory PF chooses to consider itself to have won in that regard!)

So he's more of a Matthew 5:14-16 kind of guy, rather than a Matthew 6:4-6 kind of guy?
Maybe I'm being generous, but I think Mr. Colbert is doing a pretty good job, for a mortal, of occupying the shared space between letting his faith be known, but not putting it in people's faces for his own reward. As you've managed to corner me into seeming to defend him, I feel obligated to again acknowledge my general disagreement with him politically and artistically

It seems we don't, but I'm not convinced that you can rely on Radical Constructivism to make your point. To the contrary, doesn't Radical Constructivist philosophy imply that even if Objective Reality doesn't exist, it would be impossible for any thinking organism to discover or even conceive of its (non) existence?
Well, IDK how we'd be talking about it without first conceiving of it, so I guess that much is settled, unless I've misunderstood you.

"Could we discover a lack of an objective reality?" is a philosophical question prolly beyond the scope of a comment. It may not be possible.

Then again, the measurement of the red shift of distant galaxies indicate that they are moving away from us faster than the speed of light - something that would "normally" be impossible. The question of whether this is evidence of a lack of a consistent, coherent, objective reality is rejected by "the science" in favor of the idea that "space is expanding," which I think brings its own set of problems as an explanation.

But what do I know - I came to this forum as a part time cleaning lady :: shrugs ::

Claiming that we lack any sufficiently direct experience of the Origins of the Universe to form any reliable opinion about the course of events, is very different from claiming that there is no correctly constructed narrative.
I don't understand. I read this as if you are saying that we could somehow arrive at a "correctly constructed narrative" of history without having a reliable opinion about the events which form the basis of that narrative

This orthodox Catholic answer of yours doesn't make much sense. It exploits the punning semantic confusion between Iesous (the proper name, english 'Jesus') vs. Iesous (the noun meaning 'salvation') to imply that this fictional character is making some sort of a slave purchase deal with the Devil (another fictional character).
Row, row, row your boat
gently down the stream
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily.
Life is but a dream.


Some might say the nursery rhyme is just about the joys of boating, and it certainly can be to them. Others see something else, and that is the joy of art - you really don't have to know what's good, so long as you know what you like. While I do enjoy being on the water, I also think it's a good idea to find a balance between not taking life too seriously, but still working on it, nonetheless.

Yes, I have an eye to see the way in which the gospels make their appeal to the Roman Imperium, just as it sees the ways the paintings of Jesus appeal to their own patrons. I also have another eye to see their cultural value - whether scripture or visual art.

If you'll pardon the ableism and gendered language: they say the man with one eye is king, but that is only in the land of the blind

Rick would rightly have seen this as nothing more than a metaphor of a Roman slave master trying to convince his 'property' that his situation is somehow improved from the days when the slave master was Egyptian or Hebrew.
There is always a new number 2, but who is number one? You are, number six (whether or not you are familiar with The Prisoner).

There are those who try to say that this or that race of humans is given to sl@very - the word itself comes from the "slavic" race. I think it is humanity as a whole which has evolved - even bred itself - to serve. The choice we are left with is who we will serve. I would rather serve the Logos than mammon, for it is the truth that sets us free

What kind of example is that??? The first robber didn't repent of his sins, or confess, so of course he's going to hell. What does that have anything to do with The Godfather? Are you saying that Al Pacino didn't go to heaven, even if he repented and confessed each and every Sunday?
If you will pardon the pun, while I confess that I've not seen The Godfather, my understanding is that Michael does not repent, and quite to the contrary - is instead seduced to his own darkness.

OTOH, had Michael repented from the ways of his family, then he would have had (a chance at) the heaven of a life with Kay.

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' Rather, 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.' Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. " --Romans 12:17-21 (NABRE)

What did any of this have to do with The Godfather, anyway?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I found the site because this was the place where conversations were happening that I thought (and think) should be (and will be) happening in the church (and, since finding this website, have happened in at least three churches - for whatever victory PF chooses to consider itself to have won in that regard!)
Awww shucks :) Thanks Marcilla...

[Colbert] As you've managed to corner me into seeming to defend him, I feel obligated to again acknowledge my general disagreement with him politically and artistically
So he's a good Catholic, but you don't like him? Whereas I am usually trying to show how peoples' religious errors lead more or less directly to their political foibles. Good Catholic, but sinful nonetheless?

Well, IDK how we'd be talking about it without first conceiving of it, so I guess that much is settled, unless I've misunderstood you.
I'm not entirely shooting from the hip here. I carefully read through this essay:

http://vonglasersfeld.com/papers/070.1.pdf

Ernst von Glaserfeld, An Introduction to Radical Constructivism

Knowledge can now be seen as something which the organism builds up in the attempt to order the as such amorphous flow of experience by establishing repeatable experiences and relatively reliable relations between them. The possibilities of constructing such an order are determined and perpetually constrained by the preceding steps in the construction. That means that the “real” world manifests itself exclusively there where our constructions break down. But since we can describe and explain these break- downs only in the very concepts that we have used to build the failing structures, this process can never yield a picture of a world that we could hold responsible for their failure.

Once this has been fully understood, it will be obvious that radical constructivism itself must not be interpreted as a picture or description of any absolute reality but as a possible model of knowing and the acquisition of knowledge in cognitive organisms that are capable of constructing for themselves, on the basis of their own experience, a more or less reliable world.

Can I paraphrase this: if we're confused, it's not because reality is the cause of the problem?

Or, getting back to the cosmological problem of the Origins of the Universe: you might imagine one scenario (God waving his magic wand, the universe being willed into existence), and I might imagine another (asymptotic regression towards an infinitely distant big bang...) and perhaps from our position as mortals on this planet, we can't definitively prove one or the other. But I don't see how we could both be correct.

But what do I know - I came to this forum as a part time cleaning lady :: shrugs ::
Not so fast, Marcilla -- didn't you say you were a former elite military special operative? Navy Seal, was it? Richard was always suspicious that everything that's happened since, is just a cover story.

I think it is humanity as a whole which has evolved - even bred itself - to serve.
On the contrary, throughout our prehistoric tribal hunter-gatherer existence there was a huge value in self-reliance and egalitarianism. See my article on the Wordpress site. Perhaps since the rise of civilization, we have partitioned into two subspecies, the rulers and the ruled. I have another article discussing this possibility, but I'm skeptical that this evolution has really progressed very far.

If you must find someone to serve, surely you could find someone better than the Pope?

while I confess that I've not seen The Godfather, my understanding is that Michael does not repent... What did any of this have to do with The Godfather, anyway?
I must've seen the original in 1972 when it came out. But if so I've nearly completely forgotten it, and I never saw the sequels.

Fortunately, it was easy to find a commentary which explains the intricate relationship between the Mafia and the Catholic Church as depicted in the films. And films always depict the reality, right? The point is, even though Michael Corleone and his gangster friends are sinning every day of the year, they always show up at church on Sundays. The Catholic Church wags its finger disapprovingly, but ultimately acquiesces. The collection plate is full, Heaven is satisfied.

https://georgiabulletin.org/commentary/2013/09/a-view-of-the-godfather-trilogy-from-a-catholic-perspective/

Though the films are full of Catholic themes, including justice and mercy, fate vs. spirituality, the dialectic between family and country and community, the letter and the spirit of the law, and time and timelessness, they are also charged with a deep Catholic mise en scene, or atmosphere. The Church is everywhere in “The Godfather” films: baptisms, funerals, confessions. Catholic iconography is especially prevalent. Images of Jesus, Mary and various saints appear in scene after scene. And, of course, there is sin. Lots of sin....
Many people would never accept that a man like Michael Corleone could be welcomed in Heaven, but the Catholic, believing in endless hope, knows otherwise. Because “The Godfather” affirms this hope, the films deserve to be seen again from a Catholic perspective.
 
Last edited:

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
So [Colbert]'s a good Catholic, but you don't like him? Whereas I am usually trying to show how peoples' religious errors lead more or less directly to their political foibles. Good Catholic, but sinful nonetheless?
Of course, it's not my place to judge. I don't know enough about his day to day routine to know if he prays daily, attends Mass weekly, and receives reconciliation and communion as prescribed, etc. He tends to do a not insignificant amount of humor that I find belittling - even if to people I may find personally distasteful - and IDK that I can say that this is exactly "shining the light of Christ."

That being said, I obviously consume some of his media, but even amongst the late night talk show hosts, I prolly find Seth Myers more wholesome, off the top of my head.

I'm not entirely shooting from the hip here. I carefully read through this essay:

http://vonglasersfeld.com/papers/070.1.pdf

Ernst von Glaserfeld, An Introduction to Radical Constructivism

Knowledge can now be seen as something which the organism builds up in the attempt to order the as such amorphous flow of experience by establishing repeatable experiences and relatively reliable relations between them. The possibilities of constructing such an order are determined and perpetually constrained by the preceding steps in the construction. That means that the “real” world manifests itself exclusively there where our constructions break down. But since we can describe and explain these break- downs only in the very concepts that we have used to build the failing structures, this process can never yield a picture of a world that we could hold responsible for their failure.

Once this has been fully understood, it will be obvious that radical constructivism itself must not be interpreted as a picture or description of any absolute reality but as a possible model of knowing and the acquisition of knowledge in cognitive organisms that are capable of constructing for themselves, on the basis of their own experience, a more or less reliable world.

Can I paraphrase this: if we're confused, it's not because reality is the cause of the problem?
Jerry, you have this "annoying" habit of taking the things I say more seriously than I intend them. You should know that as a woman - particularly one who is transsexual - any depth of commitment to an ideology would risk tarnishing my femininity. Instead, I am condemned to a (philosophical) life of trying on one framework after another, like so many outfit choices in the dressing room of thought.

That having been said, I received something quite contrary to what you did from the passage you quoted. Reality - or at least a tiny subset of it - causes ALL confusion we have - so far as we can tell - since - so far as we can tell - our perception of reality is created by material structures (neurology, etc.) in the very ("external") reality itself.

We are black holes, drawing in information, and unable to have a separate, direct experience of the sources by which to verify its accuracy. What we call "our nervous system" is an event horizon beyond which we cannot travel - if it's even accurate to call it a nervous system. You may imagine that the message you receive from me is in response to the message you sent to me, but not only can you not be sure that it is, you can't be sure that I sent it, that I received the one that you sent, or even that you sent it to me in the first place. It may just be that there's a tear in the fabric of reality - assuming reality exists - that your nervous system has stitched together with signal noise it amplified and arranged into a satisfying order. Jerry, you understand how machine learning works - something quite convincingly real can be constructed from signal noise - randomness - passed through a sufficiently-advanced neural network

Or, getting back to the cosmological problem of the Origins of the Universe: you might imagine one scenario (God waving his magic wand, the universe being willed into existence), and I might imagine another (asymptotic regression towards an infinitely distant big bang...) and perhaps from our position as mortals on this planet, we can't definitively prove one or the other. But I don't see how we could both be correct.
Couldn't God wave his magic wand, will FSM (SBUH) into existence, share some divine grog, then will a universe into existence with an infinitely distant big bang in its asymptotically regressed past?

Not so fast, Marcilla -- didn't you say you were a former elite military special operative? Navy Seal, was it? Richard was always suspicious that everything that's happened since, is just a cover story.
Certainly I never would have claimed that I, personally, was "elite." I have certainly been fortunate enough to experience the grace of others who may themselves have been elite.

Back in the day, it would have been customary to take the highest of offense to have been mistaken for navy, but my sense is that this inter-service rivalry custom is not what it once was, so I will just say that I was - for a time - in the 20th SFG(A) - Army.

But yes, I confess that the past 20 years have been an elaborate cover up for my real mission - a mission so clandestine that I had to actually leave the military, then get a felony, then make them ban trans service members, get out of shape, and obviously forego pay, rank, and points toward retirement so that no one serving now or in the past could know or even suspect my mission. As a matter of fact, I forgot it myself along the way, which frees me from worrying that if I'm captured that the nature of my mission could be "enhanced interrogated" out of me

If you must find someone to serve, surely you could find someone better than the Pope?
It's ultimately our Lord Whom I serve, His Holiness just happens to be the Vicar of Christ.

Certainly you wouldn't suggest I serve a master other than the Logos, I assume??

The point is, even though Michael Corleone and his gangster friends are sinning every day of the year, they always show up at church on Sundays.
Do they, though? I watched the movie, and the only times I recall seeing a hint of anything religious was in the sacraments of marriage and baptism - and these seemed inserted by Mr. Coppola to create a contrast between the sacred and profane. None of the Corleones - certainly not Michael - are shown going to confession, praying, or even attending a weekend Mass. They certainly don't discuss with one another how they could be living a life more exemplary of their Lord.

Even with fictional characters, I withhold myself from passing judgement. That being said, Vito justifies his participation in prostitution, etc. as things that "people want" - there is no attempt shown to reconcile his choices with the church's morality. Nor is there remorse for the actions taken - only for personal losses.

Michael is not portrayed - that I see - as a typical sinner, struggling to live in accordance with his faith. Instead, he flagrantly disregards the intentions of even the sacraments in which he takes place, claiming to renounce Satan and his evil works as he makes himself the godfather (in the Christian sense) of a child whose father he has ordered to be homicided at that very moment (along with others), using the sacred baptism of the innocent child as cover for his own profane and unholy "baptism by (gun)fire." If there is any internal struggle for the character between the duties he professes to be claiming in terms of the child versus the reality that he lives in opposition to this, it isn't shown.

I am curious now - however - to make it through the other two movies to get to the Vatican Bank angle
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
There is always a new number 2, but who is number one? You are, number six (whether or not you are familiar with The Prisoner).
Marcilla, I had no idea what this was about. But now I've watched Episode 1, and I'm starting to get it. Number Six has died and gone to heaven, right? The big white balloon is the proof. This reminds me a lot of The Good Place, with its portrayal of a sanitized yet sinister Heaven.

I think the joke is, that there is no Number One in Prisoner -- just like there's really no Good Place, just Bad Places...

Jerry, you have this "annoying" habit of taking the things I say more seriously than I intend them. You should know that as a woman - particularly one who is transsexual - any depth of commitment to an ideology would risk tarnishing my femininity. Instead, I am condemned to a (philosophical) life of trying on one framework after another, like so many outfit choices in the dressing room of thought.
I'll try to be less annoying. But it sure seems like you want to take Radical Constructivists more seriously than they take themselves? I really don't think they're trying to say that there is no such thing as Reality, or that attempts to understand Reality are futile. They're just proposing a realistic discussion of the process involved, and its limitations.

...something quite convincingly real can be constructed from signal noise - randomness - passed through a sufficiently-advanced neural network
Exactly!! But this is because the structure of the 'advanced neural network' embodies a model of how reality ought to be, based on long experience processing presentations of 'reality'. The phrase 'convincingly real' implies that there is indeed something 'real', as well as a conscious entity to be convinced.

Couldn't God wave his magic wand, will FSM (SBUH) into existence, share some divine grog, then will a universe into existence with an infinitely distant big bang in its asymptotically regressed past?
If that's what happened, I would have to admit that God was the one who truly set things in motion, and that my big bang was just an intermediate step in the process. I'm still a doubter, though -- you'll have to bring me a taste of that Divine Grog, before I'll buy into this.

But yes, I confess that the past 20 years have been an elaborate cover up for my real mission
So, Rick was right all along! Isn't that the infuriating thing about conspiracy theorists? We are never provably wrong. Next I'm sure you'll agree that you now must be living in the Hidden Resort, secretly consorting with John-John and also Richard.

Certainly you wouldn't suggest I serve a master other than the Logos, I assume??
If you ask me, I would suggest you serve yourself!!

I am curious now - however - to make it through the other two movies to get to the Vatican Bank angle
I'm thinking I might skip ahead...
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
Marcilla, I had no idea what this was about. But now I've watched Episode 1, and I'm starting to get it. Number Six has died and gone to heaven, right? The big white balloon is the proof. This reminds me a lot of The Good Place, with its portrayal of a sanitized yet sinister Heaven.

I think the joke is, that there is no Number One in Prisoner -- just like there's really no Good Place, just Bad Places...
Although I'm sure I've said too much already, I will provide some context, for however it may enhance your viewing pleasure...

IIRC, Mr. McGoohan had just wrapped up a popular spy-themed show called Danger Man in which he played a Bond-esque character. He was feeling a bit typecast, and pressured to do some sort of cash grab. While it's probably unavoidable for any human media to completely avoid making parallels to universal human conditions such as speculations about the afterlife, most analysis of the show I've seen begin with the show as a critique of showbusiness, the role of media in society, and society as a whole.

The other context is, of course, the cold war going on at the time, and the post-war transition society had gone through and was still going through from one of more concretely delineated national lines grouping people together to a more global community atomizing people into opposing ideologies (at the time: communism vs "traditional western values").

Be seeing you!

I'll try to be less annoying.
Don't you dare

The phrase 'convincingly real' implies that there is indeed something 'real', as well as a conscious entity to be convinced.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I got lazy, and should have included my earlier modifiers of "coherent," etc. The point being: even if we couldn't perceive a comprehendable reality (for any of the reasons), we would still be filling in the gaps (so far as we're aware, which is - even by the gap-filled reality we imagine is "really real" - also a product of our brain's creation), therefore the existence of reality is an unfalsifiable "leap of faith" in which we believe for pragmatic reasons.

Which I think leads us back to the reasoning behind my faith in institutions that promote ideas that could be considered unreasonable (if that's even where this started?)

you'll have to bring me a taste of that Divine Grog, before I'll buy into this.
I am still waiting for a taste myself to wash down the Divine wafer. Perhaps a more Hellenistic vintage?

Besides, weren't you offered some Divine grog which you turned down (along with your Cake of Light)?

If you ask me, I would suggest you serve yourself!!
Oh Number Six, you really are #1
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
While it's probably unavoidable for any human media to completely avoid making parallels to universal human conditions such as speculations about the afterlife, most analysis of the show I've seen begin with the show as a critique of showbusiness, the role of media in society, and society as a whole.
After watching a couple more episodes, I am agreeing more with most of those analyses, especially those seeing fallout from the cold war. With the current international situation evolving towards higher and higher tensions between "the west" vs. China and Russia, perhaps this is why the show seems so relevant today.

McGoohan was reportedly Catholic, leading to his most un-Bond-like cool reactions to the constant stream of beautiful women who are always trying to tempt him into revealing his information. Nowadays, it almost looks like he's worried that he'll get reported to #MeToo.

...the existence of reality is an unfalsifiable "leap of faith" in which we believe for pragmatic reasons.
I'm realizing that Radical Constructivism is deeply rooted in scientific evolutionary theory. That is, Radical Constructivists understand that the neural networks of the brain (which we use to perceive "reality") can only exist because of an evolutionary process giving rise to increasingly sophisticated such networks. The purpose of this evolutionary process, however, is not to create a perfect understanding of "reality", but rather it is to improve the chances of survival and reproduction for the organism in its environment. It's all very pragmatic, but the Radical Constructivist document explicitly denies errors such as solipsism or pure skepticism.

it also seems more scientific & sophisticated than the more primitive epistemologies of traditional Catholicism, don't you agree?

Which I think leads us back to the reasoning behind my faith in institutions that promote ideas that could be considered unreasonable (if that's even where this started?)
I'm not sure how?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Miles W. Mathis thinks Colbert is crypto Jewish. I can't make any sense of it, maybe Seeker can confirm or deny.
On page 4, Mathis is making Colbert's family Jewish by association, saying they admitted they were French Colberts in a MSNBC interview, and then saying this means they are admitting that they are also related to many Jewish/French banking lines, as well as to the Bourbons, whom I believe in his view descend from ancient elite Phoenician/Jewish lines. I would have to agree with you, though, that because all of these elite Phoenician/Jewish lines originated thousands of years ago, that we ALL descend from them, so no problem, I confirm! ;)
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
I was - for a time - in the 20th SFG(A) - Army.

But yes, I confess that the past 20 years have been an elaborate cover up for my real mission - a mission so clandestine that I had to actually leave the military, then get a felony, then make them ban trans service members, get out of shape, and obviously forego pay, rank, and points toward retirement so that no one serving now or in the past could know or even suspect my mission. As a matter of fact, I forgot it myself along the way, which frees me from worrying that if I'm captured that the nature of my mission could be "enhanced interrogated" out of me
WTH??? Are you serious, Please, or am I making the mistake (yet again) of taking someone posting on this site seriously?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I would have to agree with you, though, that because all of these elite Phoenician/Jewish lines originated thousands of years ago, that we ALL descend from them, so no problem, I confirm!
So you're trying to say it's about as lame as it looks, and he really hasn't got anything? Good.

[Marcilla] WTH??? Are you serious, Please...
An amazing story to be sure, and Richard was always a bit skeptical... but I believe!! There's video footage of Marcilla at her apartment, talking about her story with an RT reporter; and much more information at this thread:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/transgender-reality.2056/
 
Top