So then it makes sense that the objects of practical reason have to also be the objects of a pure practical reason, and so as we do our critique of this capacity we find that the objects of practical reason are the good and evil. And that’s all. Everything else is permitted, if it is only rational.

Now subjectively affected reason, practically speaking . . .

[An inspiration. In order to be our best we must conceive of that best, and then we put aside as indifferent or disruptive all thoughts which do not lead to that best, i.e., total aim at the best (a la Mr. Lin). I suddenly want to think that the Acts 15 prohibition of sexual conduct apart from marriage also was to include masturbation. Maybe the very young should be warned. Something is coming which if experienced will prove to be very troubling and disruptive to your self control in all the rest of your future. And so the best advice is the advice given by Mary to the young Jesus: namely forget it (your private parts, maybe even sort of dirty parts??*) and get focused on becoming the best you can be. Now the best (self control) that the young Knight of Jerusalem can be is a refusal to touch himself. Real self control.

[[* I’ve been thinking that civility is a customary expression of respect. And so wearing clothes even would be an expression of respect. And (to anticipate my own thoughts) where no respect is expected within the marriage (properly understood here) and nakedness is the rule.]

[Oh, here is the problem with touching yourself. You will find that you have awakened a monster within you which you will find very difficult to resist and which can work to keep you from becoming your best. This is the animal you, and it can come to possess you. So once you experience the monster, it will be very difficult to become the best you can (which calls for focus and self control), and this is the point: it will simply be more difficult to be the best you can be. Not impossible, but more difficult. (This needs to be conceived and presented without morbidity. And in any case the Free Christian of Act 15, is able to seek knowledge and then use that to help him become the best he can be.)

[And I wonder. Maybe Mr. Lin tells us that this is what we are to be about, to be the best that we can be for God, for that is precisely what Jesus was about, to be the very best son of God that he could be, and in that way to show others what the best is, and so to what they can also aspire. This is certainly Paul’s thinking where we become model fathers and mothers and employee, etc. We become the best that we can be.

[For those who are already exposed to the monster a different technique must be undertaken, namely to feed the monster only what is necessary to keep him from interfering with becoming the best that he can be. Perhaps according to a schedule, or as a young Wesleyan once admitted to his paster that the pastor should not be concerned about temptations on the part of the youth, for he always masturbated before going in a date. Sounds to me like something a Lin type might do, if he ever felt that he might lose self control in a bad situation, i.e., come across too strong on a date, or something.

[So Mr. Lin will see himself doing precisely what Jesus was doing, the only difference being that Jesus had the perfect mother and so he never got off on the wrong foot. Momma did it. Momma made it possible for Jesus. Jesus never called forth the monster, although the monster may have come in his sleep. But he never succumbed to touching himself, even after the monster appeared in his sleep and made him wet himself in total innocence and able to recognize the monster as a reality.

[So maybe that’s the right way to train children, to promote the celibate youth as the goal of being the best that you can be. Then somehow in the marriage we have this situation, two people help each other to play with the monster without fear and have tons of fun. And, I suspect, the reason we are able to do this is because of what Gandhi told us, that our perfection can only be attained mutually, together with another, and this can only come about via total spontaneity and candor, and that is only possible in a complete absence of fear and intrigue, and that is only possible in a marriage of two people where the word divorce is a taboo, and never to be spoken. That is the one word which may not be uttered by the two of a marriage.

[So just as our elder brother in this matter, Jesus, did the very best he could, and you see that it became the best possible in general and universally, and become the utterly perfect (presumably he would have excelled in music if he had been in that condition rather than the son of Mary), even so all are called to do who wish to be Knights of Jerusalem, and become known as the sort of person that you could not be afraid of. A Champion for God.

[A further reflection. Perhaps we should not praise children for doing their best, and somehow encourage them without praising them for doing what they are obligated as humans to do anyway, namely their best. “At least you did your best, and you can always be proud of that, just as I am of you.” Perhaps then we honestly praise only those who are in fact the best, and keep our minds on doing the best that we can as our duty and our purpose. Lin does this as a gift to God, to show his love of God, and for God will become the very best that the can, and let God then show him how he stacks up in comparison with others, whether he is the best of all or not. (A productive use of the competitive spirit.)]

This reflection maybe leads back into the objects of practical reason. Certainly reason itself is telling us to be the best that we can be. Now at that point the thief would tell himself to be the best thief that he can be and to go all the way. But since this is a critique of practical reason and since this includes now also pure reason (as was shown earlier in the critique), it follows that the ultimate guide is the determination of whether it is possible to want some object or not. And so the objects of practical reason in general are two: the good and the evil.

I use this example often: when a left handed, homosexual thief becomes a Christian all he gives up is the thievery, for the objects are the good and the evil, and the thievery alone is evil. There is no ill in the left hander or the homosexual.*

[* I sincerely think that it would be difficult to promote the personhood of the homosexual without the aid of the left hander. Both are totally queer and curious.]

Now we don’t give up on our happiness in our practical actions; on the contrary we are also in pursuit of our weal and avoiding our woe, And here (perhaps?) we see a more common sense take on the objects, where good denotes the means to some pleasure or happiness and where evil or bad points to an outcome which is not pleasurable and is unhappy.

And so our practical rationality is directed toward our own happiness and the only thing we have to be super careful about is the good and the evil, which are the ultimate objects of practical reason. We are to become the best that we can be, using our heads, and the best that we can be is good and that is expected of us. We are expected rationally to use our heads and make goals and go for our weal and avoid our woe.

So, as I seek to grasp and express this, the object of practical reason is good and evil. Otherwise anything goes. If it is not an object of practical reason, i.e., if it is morally indifferent, and if there is reason to think that it makes you happy, then go for it (carefully and rationally). So that is what practical reason is about, our own good, and the only objects to watch out for are the good and the evil.

Obviously I need a clear and more cogent understanding of the object of practical reason.

Maybe: the objects of practical reason are the good and the evil. We are in rational pursuit of the good and avoidance of the evil. We are to undertake actions which are good and lead to our happiness, and we are to avoid actions which are evil and lead to unhappiness. And so we are talking about the rational fulfillment of what we are want. We are not allowed to want what is evil, and we are required to want what is good. And so when we look at our wants and look to rationally accomplish them, we have already excluded what we cannot want, namely the morally wrong or evil; they cannot be counted among the wants for we are not allow such wants. They cannot be counted among the wants we are planning to rationally satisfy. And we have to and are required to want the morally good. That is a requirement of our practical rationality as a totality and thus including pure practical reason. Int his way then do we distinguish among the desires and come up with wants which our practical rationality can help us achieve.

So in examining our wants, we first have to realize that some are required and some are forbidden, and so the required come first, and then after that all other wants can be rationally pursued. And so indeed: the object of practical reason is the good and the evil. Once the good and evil are identified, we can pursue our wants with rational gusto.

I think now I was wrong the other day in advocating mercy of the youth in their sexual self restraint. I see now through Lin the truth of the Edict of Liberation by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) that chastity represents total dedication on one to God, to be his champion and hope to be the best for him, for God. Imagine, in all of one’s waking hours you are reminding yourself of your love of God and to do you best and to anticipate and look for an opportunity to be his champion.

So that’s what Acts 15 gives us: the Champion of God. We are to go out in all the confidence of the knights of old and to slay dragons and to do it for God.

I wonder if this Lin is a Wesleyan? Wesley talked about having to act as if everything depended upon you, which is giving your all, your totality, your very best, and then to pray as though it all depended upon God as to say: your will be done. And I like this idea of embodiment. With Lin I think it is an act of will and of a sincere love of God, that he is our common father.

And Wesley certainly taught that we can be successful in our strength of love and find a progression toward perfection, and so that it is a practical and achievable goal, and in fact is a guaranteed goal.

This ties in nicely with St. Paul who felt that this total dedication would lead to model fathers and mothers and model employees, etc. It just requires that we do very best and aim and expect perfection in love.

And now I like the idea of competition that is contained in Lin’s thinking (or my developing conception of this) where this gives us the opportunity like jousting knights to try to be the best. That’s what is is then; a game to be the best. In whatever you do you should aim to be the best. And he does it for God because he has come to love God.

Remarkable, I think. Taking the energy of the competition and utilize it for the common good. And without the downside.

The Chinese Communist would be well advised to let Lin be their next president, for he would accomplish their purpose by providing the missing ingredient, the love of God (which would have been foreign to them) with the excitement and vigor of the competition. To be a Champion of God, to claim that deserves respect, at least by those of puberty.

So maybe the Council was on to something in giving us the dedicated free Christian, and where the dedication is in the love of God and wanting to live for him and in that way be a model husband, student, human being, a model everything. To follow Jesus will mean to love God because he love not just one of us, but all of us.

My blessing is: thank you for this day and for this food and for each other. Help us to love you and each other just as you love us.

Maybe that is Lin’s intention.

I’m interested in this idea of conflict and the role of the jousting knights who did it to win favors, but here do it to love God, by always doing their best in all things for him. So we have this need for conflict and here we see that it can serve our purposes by being hitched to God and doing everything because we love him (he having first loved us) and want to do something for him, to win a basketball game, to accomplish something for him, for God.

I like the idea a lot. I really think the Chinese Communist now ought to be smart enough and to go along with their sincere belief in the happiness of the Chinese and people in general and introduce Mr. Lin as President and set a whole new course for the welfare of the Chinese and the world. I like it and I recommend it. Then it would be a tussle between two Christian opponents, namely the organized Christian Chinese and the market driven secular Americans. That would be interesting, for the Chinese to follow Lin and come to rule the world, a nation dedicated to excellency and one dedicated to the God of the “love all loves excelling”.

All the Chinese government would then have to do is to organize society in terms of various competing teams, where all the proceeds go to the common good, and where there is no malice but merely a drive to do the very best that one can in order to serve and honor and love God, and the reason being because this God loves not just me, but all of us. That would be the mind set.  The government would gives us the teams and the people would provide the energy through their love of God (which encompasses all others). And they would always have the single goal: neighborly and brotherly love. So the Chinese need to be practical and take on Linism as the orientation of society and add love of God to the failed materialist foundation and come up with a happy world, and that is ultimately your goal, I am sure.

Further reflection: to do it right Lin needs to be a Free Christian and to love God to the utmost of his capacity, and to do it as a Free Christian in friendly competition with the Religious Christian, and then let God choose the champion. This is the Left foot print and the Right foot print. The Chinese could become free Gentile Christians and compete with the Western External Authority Christians and see where that would lead us.

All that it will take is for the leaders of China to want the end they have in sight to be more important than the means. And so if it takes religion to make it work, then make it work. Lin should be the next President of China and get the game going. It’s either Christian Communism or it is Corrupt Capitalism.

I’m just starting on the Objects of Pure Practical Reason (again) and see where Kant wants and needs to put good and evil totally in the eye of the autonomous human being, so that any action that can taken by a maxim which cannot be universalized is simply wrong. And since it is objects of practical reason that we ourselves create through our actions, we know (?) that it is the law alone that is holy, and all our actions must conform to pure reason as the arbiter of its object, whether the action can be willed by a universal law . . . or not. And so good and evil are established in the willing and not in the action itself. Actions are good or evil per the moral law of pure reason.

Then we’ll get into the model of the moral law and it goes: how would I fare in a world if every one acted as I want to do now by taking my maxim to be a universal law of nature. That tells us what is good and evil as practical beings.

Then we look at how we react emotionally to this moral law of our own autonomy and we find a new feeling which we call the moral feeling, and it has to do with a humiliation of the ego on the one hand, and then in an exaltation of the moral law of universal human dignity, i.e., it is the empirical proof that we have dignity. We know inwardly that if we do a certain thing that we can never have self respect again. This is the emotional force of the moral law in the person of a human.

So what have we accomplished? We have seen the authority of pure reason in conceiving of the moral law as the law of free beings and we ourselves proclaim this as the necessary law, the universalization of the maxims in discerning the good and the evil.

We know that we are bound by the dictates of pure reason to judge our own actions and the actions of all in terms of the moral law of universalized maxims. We proclaim this ourselves and on our own as an expression of our autonomy. We see ourselves as bound and even the scientist acquiesces in this bondage.

Good and evil are objects of pure practical reason by virtue of the moral law.

The way you tell is via the Model of a world where the maxims were to become a natural law.

And then there is the emotional, empirical evidence in the moral feeling of respect to this law in a torn-expression of humility and exaltation. This is what we would expect for a being who can be controlled or driven by his desires and also by his reason.

I guess the next thing is to move to the dialectic and dealing with and uniting the desires and the moral in the Highest Good and thus the aim of practical reason in general. The final object of practical reason will be moral perfection and a commensurate happiness.

Now here the argument seems to fall flat. For it essentially means to accept the Highest Good because it is purpose of practical reason, or to go into nihilism where there is no purpose to practical reason or even to anything.

Or perhaps remain in a state of agnostic indecision and recognize that it could be so and so to tend toward a more moral life just to be sure.

Then there is this argument. If you are inclined morally and if you are guided by practical reason and if you are given an opportunity to fashion a world with regard to the correlation of moral perfection and happiness (either random or connected) and if you had to live in that world like anyone else, then what sort of world would you choose?

Kant then answers in this wise:

you will be driven by practical reason to unify these two drives of the moral and happiness and so you would choose the Highest Good.
you will also want this yourself as a morally inclined person (per the assumption) because you want there to be a meaning and import to your duties, i.e., that they count for something, and you will want this even though you can’t be sure how you might fare in such a world yourself.

I think that Kant then wants the reader to opt for living a life which posits the Highest Good as the purpose of that life. In a way he seems to be saying that you yourself should now act accordingly and undertake how best to implement this Highest Good in this world, to the extent humans are capable.

The Highest Good does unify practical reason and make it whole, and since nihilism and hopelessness are the rejection of the Highest Good, accept the Highest Good as the meaning of your life.

You can exclude God all you wish to in the academic life, and that is even your duty as a scientist, but you need to live as though there were a God and an eternal soul, for it is by means of them that the Highest Good is a practical aspiration of the human soul, and so with Kant even the scientist must say: there must be a God, else there were no morality. And since there is a morality, there must be a God. [Except for the lunatic and irrational atheist (as opposed to the rational and immoral atheist).] And so since there is a morality there must either be a God or you are a lunatic. And so now the moral man will either believe in God or else he is a lunatic (like Spinoza).

I find this attitude a fascinating tie in with the Wesleyan Covenant Prayer of total identification with God via the Holy Spirit. It also incorporates a self discipline called for by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

It’s like Lin wants always to be ready to serve God in any way and at any moment, and if God permits the sheen of victory to accrue to him momentarily, Lin thanks for letting him shine for God, to honor him with a win. To show God is active in the world.

And so there is this excitement and exuberance that comes from a competition and especially in a team play. And this then will be utilized in the organization of humanity. It will be a field of competition and where all activities are undertake out of love for God and to his honor. Choirs will compete with each other for the prize of victory, and production assets will also compete for the price of victory, and the victory is having been selected to honor God in this way (by winning the trophy), and where all money is shared, and all activity is for the love of God who loves us individually because he loves us all together. “The thief is my brother.”

This, as I see more clearly, is the element that was missing in the commune of the First Church Jerusalem (Act 4) namely the Chinese organizational insight into the role of team competition and competition among the team members (where the supreme rule is: work for the team, and be the best you can–just don’t show off, do it for God and that means doing it right).

It goes like this, I guess. I’m a free American and I have this responsibility to all my fellow free Americans to join in a joint defense of our freedom. That’s fundamentally a part of the deal we have made with each other. We will protect the freedom of all Americans to determine our own destiny, from enemies internal and external.

Now let’s make a case for the removal of the mandate. How vulger that must sound to the ear of a free American, i.e., I should be left to decide for myself as to whether I want to be concerned about my health. So let’s get rid of the mandate by changing it into a national defense tax, for the duration of the threat.

Now this is the threat, that we, being left to our own devices, will continue to make unhealthy choices, given the temptations of a free American market. We can hardly expect the Americans do really buckle down and get healthy given the incredible marking of the American mind.

And here’s the problem. We can’t afford this. We cannot sit by and go to waste and expect China and other non-free nations to get an edge. In order to remain free in America we are going to have to make our way in an economy which may not be as free as you might wish. And this goes not only to our health, but also to our talents. So like Mr. Lin let’s draw on the energy that comes only from competition, at least in a free economy.

We need health and education and we therefore commit to increasing our investment in certain areas even if it is uncomfortable to do this. And so what we do is this. We bank on the intelligence of the American public, and we find our salvation in the free market.

We place a tax on ourselves, equal at the begining to the prescribed mandate, and we will use that money to go out onto the free maket and find the competition we need among the suppliers and we get the best price we can get, and then we turn to the country and say to ourselves. Look, it is bought and paid for (by your very own taxes), and it seems to me that you would be a fool to have free health care available to you and not take advantage of it.

We increase the market to include all people whatsoever we pay for it by taxing what is needful in a free market to get the best deal. And it is done by just changing the words “mandate” to “defense tax”. Now once the American people are so healthy that there is no fear of any foreign supremacy, then we will be able to dismantle the system.

So we are paying for a necessary foreign defense by means of the health tax, and the efforts and skills of the various suppliers are utilized for their own profit and thus applied with gusto, and there is total freedom about whether you want to take advantage of the services available to you (no concersion) and it will obviously work (because free American are also rational Americans).

So the government becomes a single collector of insurance premiums and then simply bidding the free market of many sellers. According to my “Lin thinking” (and I don’t really know much about him).

Tax for common defense. Provision of the means for common defense in the health care system. One other fix. The justification is not internal commerce but rather national defense. That’s what we are about it, providing for our national defense in a way that we can certainly convey to our children a free America. And when we are finally free and healthy, we can change course and let people do foolish things with their money and that’s there business. They are free to be stupid if they want to. But at this time we cannot afford to let people be stupid, not to the extent it depends upon our mutual duty for common defense. We cannot make our children suffer because we were so selfish we really just didn’t care how things might turn out for future generations.

I look for a clear exposition. Under the authority of our mutual duty for common defense and in the recognition of a danger to our freedom in the foreign realm we enact a national defense tax and use it to provide the capacity for universal health care and expect the Americans to join in and become healthier as a result, but also as a result of their own free will. Because just because they pay for a service it doesn’t mean that they have to take the free service, and can just as easily toss it aside, but I doubt very much that many Americans will assert this their freedom, and I think we can count of the cooperation of all.

Tax. Provide a free service. The free rational American will take the free service freely, and as a result we will be healthier than we would have been. And so it is all a sleight of hand, as it were, to accomplish what is needed, i.e., universal health care. The fix is a slight on hand.

The whole idea was to let the free market provide the services. And so the fix is the justification (national defense)  and the tax in place of the mandate.

I suppose we could leave it where the government deals with the insurance  company directly instead of the insurance companies having to deal with lots of individuals. May be more efficient over all. What I mean is that the government would deal only with insurance companies and not doctors and hospitals. That would be more efficient than in dealing directly with the providers themselves. The government will have a lot of cloud, speaking for the American people as a whole, and can provide real incentives getting a good product, a good insurance policy. So essentially then the government would merely pay the health insurance premiums and would leave it to the insurance companies to dole out to the free market of doctors, hospitals, etc.

Further reflection. Instead of me going out on the market to get some insurance for my needs, the government will pay the insurance bill directly in the form of a basic coverage for all health services to me. And I can then take advantage of that and go to the doctors under the plan of the insurance company whose free coverage I accept. Now I am also free to buy my own insurance if I don’t like the free coverage, if I want to and if I am able.

So I see it as covering a basic insurance for everyone, and where it may be this insurance company or that. The government payer would certainly want to encourage Lin’s creative team spirit in and among the various insurance companies via competition. And so in my area I would expect to have at least two alternatives for my free coverage, and the insurance companies then vie for each other to provide the most enticing options and alternatives in order to sign up me and get more customers in order to get a greater share of the premium  paid for by the government medical defense tax.

Sort of the Christian knight, going about righting wrongs and setting the world in order for the sake of their vow and dedication. The atheist declare them as insane as Don Quixote.

The youth need to be called the celibacy in some way. The strength of character must be implemented in something like sexual control. And also to answer the question: is the potential mate a person of character, such that a life long connection would be warranted?

They must believe the story well enough. I don’t know how to start this, maybe oral sex is not sex. No penetration in the crotch area would be the taboo. Would that be a way to have a taboo, something to be recognized at the cost of one’s self respect. This then would be the symbol of the Christian youth, namely they would be celibate. Perhaps a secondary blessing would be that the youth would discover ways of sexual delight which do not result in pregnancy and thus give us an added tool for the regulation of the population so that all who are born may have a secure opportunity of maturity and happiness. This could be promoted in a rational control of the presentations of porn in some way. Or however that can be conveyed.

Or maybe it’s mutual masturbation that is allowed. Some restraint. Some meaningful and significant self restraint. To mark the taboo. Taboo doesn’t mean it is evil, but merely “hands off” (at least for now). A “circumcision” of the heart.

This I think should be the mark of the Christian knight, one who has dedicated his life to the glory of God and out of love for him in wanting to serve and love all God’s children without exception. I want to get that clear in my thinking: I want to love God with my very existence and I will do whatever occurs as his will for my life and I know thus much in advance that he wants me to love all of his children, for all are precious to Him, all including therefore also myself. He loves me because he is so wonderful that he loves all me’s and that includes me, and so me as one of many beloved of the Father. And I love him so much for this that I want to serve him with the life he as given me on this earth. I’ m thinking this may be Lin’s thinking.

I love God most especially not so much that he loves me, but more because he loves all of us, we are all precious and infinite in his sight. So I am not glad that my parents did not prefer me, but rather that she preferred us all equally, for that means an objective love for me, by virtue of being a member of the family. We are equally beloved as members of a family, and thus absolutely. We look out for each other because we love each other as siblings.

It gets back into Kant. Our claim to dignity is by virtue of the moral law of the universalized personal maxim to judge our own actions objectively and on our own (autonomy). So I guess another reason for us humans to love God is because he made us rational beings so that we could accept him as a fact (postulate) and so then gradually come to know and experience him and love him. So God wants us to love him and be happy so that he could be happy in our happiness.

The Fall. This is inexplicable except to say that the moral evil lies in the fact that we are willing to consider an immoral act. The very fact that we will consider a violation of the moral law means that we are capable of doing it and show already our immoral bent. Conscious awareness of this comes later, I would think. So whatever the origin there is this fact: all humans are capable of considering an immoral act on occasion. Obviously this frame of mind colors all that we ever do in a world peopled with people just like us in that regard, which is what we naturally have to accept. Rational mistrust and distrust.

Oh, the good news is that before conscious memory we make a decision to consider an immoral act, and so while it is natural and innate and evil, it is our choice and so we are free to change. That’s the good news.

We have to be willing to dedicate ourselves to the good principle and to simply ignore thoughts that pop up concerning an immoral path that could possibly be taken safely, and to cast them aside as random firings of the brain if not something more sinister. We have to be assured of a becoming good people in truth, so that it is not just a fancy and mirage. And our own reason tells us how we can be accepted (by God) as moral, even when still struggling, and how we can be sure of this acceptance (depending upon our exposure and experience) and how justice is served through the punishment due to the old man being absorbed by the new man in his intention of taking on additional ills for the sake of the good principle, i.e., at his conversion to the good principle.

Then (and I am now in Kant’s Religion) we can have no practical hope for success in this world by doing it on our own, and the only practical hope for success in this world is by mutual help and encouragement and under the rubric of a divine constitution of this cooperative endeavor which is unalterably (and not for discussion) bound to the law of universal neighborly and brotherly love (thus commanded by the unchanging God). This is also Kant’s “curious duty” to cooperate but where there is no guarantee of the cooperation of others.

What then does the Universal Church look like? It can posses rituals and creeds which can be recited without violation of conscience for the purposes of solidarity of purposed and spirit. And the only law which is valid is the law of universal brotherly love. There is no other commend of God than this alone. All else is done in solidarity of spirit.

Kant speaks of the Ideal of the moral law to be a love of the moral law, and this is getting close to Lin’s love of God. Loving God as a Parent. As a beloved child should look upon his own parents with understanding and thus  with enlightened, and thus heightened, love.

And so essentially we are the reason for our own misery and this can change if people want to bad enough, bad enough to do what it takes.

The great moment of drama for me in John is when Jesus is at the marriage feast and has rebuked his mother for calling him forth on this occasion and now faces the servants who, per his mother’s instruction, are waiting to be told what to do. He has had this power only on the word of his mother all of these years, and only now would actually step out in his confidence in his mother’s stories to command the water be turned into wine. Just do it! Just say the words and change the world. This was the end of his childhood, I guess. When they looked at each other, Jesus and Mary, there was love and compassion in them both. The die had been cast. And the going was not going to be easy.

I’ve just forgotten my “marvelous” idea that called for clear expression. So here I am at the keyboard  . . oh, I remember it was handsome (a personal perspective) Mr. Jeremy Lin. I was taken by this notion of acting for God, victory or defeat (as I guess), it was all for the glory of God and maybe in thanksgiving for being touched with the talent of basketball (which which perhaps hides another layer). I wonder. If we lived our lives for God, as I think Mr. Lin is sincerely trying to do, then we would never appoligize in defeat but would always be mindful of doing one’s best and it is only in our derilection of our sworn duty to God that we have any reason to be ashamed.

Sort of a Buddhist thing, in a way, namely I have subscribed to the Wesleyan Convenant Prayer and so that’s simply the way things are. Sort of like Francis. That’s just the way the things worked out for him, namely this suffering is endured for the sake of God. And so somehow as we lose the Self and take up what I could call the Communal (maybe?) namely that we are indeed to lose our Self, but we ourselves as personalities are to make up a greater, common good, which is the reality and we are but the raindrops.

I just had a wonderful thought. Mr. Lin knows of my esteem for the prowess of he Chinese and who thinks they could easily be the hand of God in the world, if the common faith were Christianity and not tinged with Buddhist self interest. So maybe this guy becomes the Free Christian and walk out into total faith in the belief that simply doing one’s best for God in implementing his law of brotherly love according to his own awake and clear understanding of medicine and poison. That’s it. That is the utter faith of St. Paul, namely he just did it. He didn’t bate an eye, but just do it. Just following himself as a truly spontaneous being, and here maybe I wander, the way God would look if God were ever to appear to the humans (but which he can only do through the man Jesus and so must suffer himself to make it happen, this ultimate will, i.e., and so the Free Christian simply does it. He has always the law of universal brotherly love as his sure and certain guide in dealing with other human beings, his brothers and sisters. Sort of like Hiter, in a way, in his willingness to just do it; it make it happen; it force it to happen.

Is this then a trance? A man going around in the idea that he is exemplifying the will of God in his living (just as Jesus did and the apostles), in his living in accordance with his own best understanding of the expedient implementation of the law of love, his ever sure guide and always trustworthy (Romans 14:4). So his liberty is the absence of any externally imposed law of any kind whatsoever, and where the sole goal is in the implementation of a love of God which is expressed in love for all humans whatsoever.

This Lin is like John Wesley who, prompted by a moment of profound peace, just stood up, like Paul on the spot, and simply spoke and lived his heart. Total faith. Total faith. He just did it. I need to do that to. In total faith. To live in total faith.

The teaching of Wesley is that we will find are growing in love and we will experience this growth and will finally come to love God not only by intention and dedication but now as a reality which has made possible this progressively exposed transformation of the soul, a new spirit.

So in Lin, as I dream in my inspired state, will represent the Free China, what a China in freedom can produce. I think the Chinese are able and capable of bring salvation to this world if they would let freedom now ring and let the Chinese talent come to play. Most exciting is the framework the Communist has instituted in social communism and now, through the likes of Mr. Lin.

Suddenly a flash! Just like the partcicles that come into and go out of existence, the will of God is exposed in the life of Lin. Maybe flashes of glory, but which is merely as God has chosen to employee Mr. Lin at the time, and where he is always to act in fearless faith, trusting in the law of love as the guide to his conscience.

The icon for the Lin type would be John 5:1-18 where Jesus consciously refuses to wait until the sun goes down in order to show respect for the will of God as revealed to all in the Torah, and impudently simply does a loving act on the spot in order to say: no communication from God can be so understood as to inhibit an immediate act of love. Wow! Talk about liberty! As Kant said, Jesus was a revolutionary. And he did it. He spoke as a man of authority.

A main element that Lin’s Christianity could bring to the Chinese Enterprise is an antidote to the nihilism of Buddhism (bless their hearts, they didn’t know Jesus, but shared in his sadness and tears before Jerusalem) namely a hope and expectation of a world of happy people, namely those who look at the law to love neighbor as the supreme expression of the love of God on earth.

Oh, back to the particles, then when the particle is gone (at least out of sight within the brainarium) it is not out of existence but only out of sight. Then likewise the work of God in the world is sometimes visible and sometimes not, and even then you must look with eyes of faith to see this truth.

And so maybe the particle behavior gives us an analogy with the behavior of the work of God, and sometimes it is visible and sometimes not, but it is just that, it is either in sight or it is not, but it always exists.

And just as the rests in music are part of the music, in an odd sort of way, and just because you don’t hear the trumpets, is because God is appearing in another perspective and the time for the trumpets is not yet. And so God’s hand is always working in the world, but it appears here and it appears there to the eye within the brainarium. But then there is the internal evidence of the desire to love God and to serve in his work of love, in his promised New Jerusalem, which could be the name of the realm of the Free Chinese, a la Mr. Lin.

Perhaps Mr. Lin’s China will be set up like this. There will always be two competitors and each will strive for victory in terms of productivity and intelligent thinking. But none will be working for money, for that will be provided to all, rather they will relish in the glory that they have given God. Maybe that’s the solution to our problems: always two teams in a competition for the glory of having been blessed to honor God. This is what the Communist would want with the reward of having been the best, but Lin’s way would be better, for he is fighting for victory (as do the markets), but not for the reward (which he is wanting to share according to the law of love) but for the honor of having been selected by God to serve him in this particular way at this particular time.

So the Chinese will be taking the Commune of Jerusalem and showing how to make it work, by an appropriate division of labor into teams of people who love God beyond expression (and Jesus indicated) and are honored in whatever their condition at being allowed to be God’s servant. Very much like Francis in Brother Sun and Sister Moon.

The lesson on this dream is that Gandhi is right namely God has given us all the answers to all of the problems that can ever arise and we simply have to share all that we know. The market does it only with pain. Lin’s China could do it without that pain. Funny we would all be striving to develop our talents to the best of our ability, and would be doing it willingly and even eagerly, and as a result we create masterpieces during our little time of play.

So that’s my dream for this morning, that Lin join the Free Chinese with the Free Christian and provide the path of salvation for the human race. If that works, then the Americans may have to do the same thing in order to keep going. The American Christian is not primarily a Free Christian and is encumbered with the baggage of its history. It will be easier to fashion a Free Christian China like my conception of Mr. Lin (about whom I know very little) and it will be a Free Christian America.

It seems to boil down to the surrender of Self (like a Buddhist, I suppose) and then the expression of a team member. So giving up as Self and taking up Team. And so every winner signals the victory to God.

Maybe this team idea reaches even down into the marriage, for the marriage is a team of love where talents are expressed spontaneously in love and needs are covered by mutual and loving consent. There, perhaps, the team members compete with each other in providing the most love to the marriage, i.e., in being the very best team player in making it a great team.

God will be happy when the world is clean, but we can only clean it up the right way, and this right way is the way of Jesus. And so God is pleased with the death of Jesus as providing the redemption to the whole world (and perhaps making it moral in the eyes of the angels–I speculate), not so much in paying for sin as rather leading his fellow humans down a path that leads to their happiness forever but requires this individual “death” to sin. This is why he did what he did. He was saying to all: follow me and you will live. That you will find in me. Follow me and even though you die yet will you live. So he goes through this horror of death, in the full realization of the pain and suffering and sadness this is going to cause his beloved, he does it in order to share with them, his beloved, with the good news of the work of God, that we all shall live and shall be with each other forever in a final realm where there is enough for full happiness and needs only to be shared.

So Jesus leads the way and since this is necessary according to the only hope for the redemption of the human species he does it, he dies in order to rise again for those who love him enough to suffer with him. This is enough to make God pleased with what Jesus does, i.e., it finally convinces the humans of the love of God for the entire creation.

So it is not to satisfy a wrathful God, but certainly an angry God as to what we have become through our own selfishness, that he died, but in order to provide the only means of convincing the humans, i.e., immediate experience, and then leaving it to them and the guidance of God to expand until finally perfection, and thus in this way to cause God sorrow at Jesus’ suffering in the Holy Spirit. He did what was absolutely necessary when dealing with humans, it had to be a direct perception, i.e., he did die and he was brought back to life, and then it would multiple by means of imitation of the living of people who lived without fear of any kind.

It would also nice to be able to bring Mary into the picture. But that’s beyond me now. She voluntarily joined in to suffer for the sake of God and of the humans. She would suffer the death of her innocent son for the sake of the redemption of all.

So what then is going on? We join the band of Jesus in this attitude: we are to die to sin and be resurrected as new creatures in Christ. His example for us indicates the scope of his love for us, that he does this in order that even the worst might realize that they have a new chance and one which is guarantee (by the power of the Resurrection).

So funny, there are witnesses to this miracle, but it cannot count with science because the witness was not objective enough (maybe a trick of the mind), which doesn’t mean that it is not true, but only that it is not recognized by an empirical science as objective. It’s like in the Screwtape Letters that I could be influenced by thoughts that pop up from a good spirit and those that pop up from a bad spirit and I can’t tell any difference in their being my own thoughts, and can tell about any origin to these thoughts, and so where as such they are indistinguishable by me as merely an expression that was suddenly articulated in the mind.

Finally then I guess in my ramble we come to the Wesleyan who is able to attest to an actual experience of improvement in the love of the neighbor where there is now growing joy (be careful of my spelling of: not, now and no and even know).

So on a broad scope we see: Kant’s critique calling for the Highest Good as the meaning of life and then we find it incorporated in the teachings of Jesus and we find the possibility of actual empirical evidence that nature cannot keep dead a perfectly moral person, even if that person agrees to die for some reason, but which can also be doubted and explained away, and then finally there is the current testimony of people who can attest to the fact of what is promised in the Jesus stories, i.e., an actual growth in love. Wesley observed that this latter experience is the best validation possible of the truth of the fact of Jesus as the Righteous One. The promise is this: if you will trust in the Lord Jesus and strive to live and to love without fear, you will be given evidence of actual progress in that endeavor, such that you have every reason to expect someday to achieve to the purity of Jesus, as he promised, if you live long enough and if you are challenged in love.

With now an ever broader sweep: Kant makes us into agnostics via his critique of pure reason. Then in the critique of practical reason he is making us believers in a practical sense as the only way that human moral existence can make sense (which I guess is doubted by the Darwinian) is in the achievement of a goal which is called the Highest Good (moral perfection and commensurate happiness). And so the only way reason can count itself as competent to rule the human is via the Idea of the Highest Good as the actual goal and to be anticipated and not just hoped for. Consistent with that then we have the empirical (but doubtable) evidence of Jesus which certainly transformed his friends and which is replicated today in the lives of the followers of these friends, the one who knew him first hand.

Subsequent note: The satisfaction of justice in Kant’s conception of the sinful man who has earned an infinite punishment. But the new man cannot count the good that he will do as a consequence of being a good man, as a payment for the punishment. The solution arises in the conception of the conversion itself. The new man will have to take on many new ills as a result of tying his hands by the moral law, and these ills can be counted as infinite in potential and thus equal to the infinite punishment due the old man. The understanding is that the new man will not take credit for the good that he does, nor complain about the actual ills that do arise as a result of this new nature in this naturally evil world.

And so the atonement is undertaken personally, following the necessary sacrifice of Jesus and following in his footsteps for the sake of the old man that he might become the new man, if only he wants to.

Presently I am seeing the necessity of the marriage as an absolutely, namely that any two people may team up and enter a world of total candor with each other, knowing (in law) that this will never be mentioned apart from the union. And this is why this is important. We are indeed free beings, but who can yield to another, but only one other (at least for now, and perhaps forever, so there can be no ganging up, perhaps) and what this does is this. It exposes ourselves to the full range of humanly existence in being both a social being and a naked being, having them both. We have to be naked in a crowd, so to speak, in order to express ourselves totally and without cover, but we can’t do that in a realm of unconnected beings, where it is happenstance, but where it is total, and where the interested of the society might not correspond with your world. So we have to have secrecy in order to exist in this fallen world, but we also have to have a total unveiling. I wonder now that the difference between us and with Jesus is that he never lived in a private world, but was the same regardless of how many and whom. Wow!

Anyway. So we need the marriage to provide this means to total human exposure to itself, a society and also being free in a society (of that society).

Now rationally speaking I can’t see any difference between the two sexes, the two making one. I see the need for a marriage, but I don’t see the need for that to be dependent upon sexuality. So what is the advantage of such an organization of society, that some find their happiness in same sex and those who find happiness in different sex. Maybe we will not be surprised.

I think as we begin to care more we could enter a transition into a world where things just so developed that there is a morph and at some point perhaps you are told that you are now just a trajectory with regard to the moral existence.

So how you are awoken one day and realize that the last so many moments or years were merely another hologram.

So that must be Scientology, where we are holograms and there is something else entirely going on and not related to the morality of any given existence.

So Scientology gives an explanation as to our predicament, we are so because we choose to be and not because we have to be and we can choose quiet differently and go for our own self interest in cooperation with others who are also so awaken. Man, that’s it. Let’s milk as best we can and get on with our existence as we move on. Simply put we are not bound by any consideration of moral or immoral. Understood. That’s out. That’s not what binds us. What binds us is our total self interest. We are bound only for the sake of self utilization, however that might be understood.

Moving on, perhaps,

Quite dreamy and incredibly peaceful, with little rumble.

The Buddhist perhaps is saying: let go. Stop the struggle. Just let go. It will be OK. Just stop the struggle and you will see that it will be ok. You will be ok. Just let go.

The Christian perhaps is saying: let go of the self, and grab hold of the common and you will created and even participate in a world of infinite happiness. In other words, let go of the single, but lay hold of the all in humanity itself, and so give up (self) but not give up (hope).

The buddhist: give up self and give up suffering. The Christian: give up self but don’t give up hope, rather take hope.

So the buddhist: there is only one hope and that is no hope (giving up on hope). the Christian: there is one hope and it is the common hope, the hope in us as a species, that we can attain to this happiness on earth and are to work for it, and are to expect it to occur.

Unless indeed God says to the angels: enough, I have shown you that this toy is insanity and so you see where it is headed and so I can quit giving you my hints and lo you see what a wreck it is, totally impossible, and I will end the charade and assign each his moral judgment and destiny, and move on to another development I want to show you and for you to wonder at and see how great I am.

It’s like this, from a sort of scientology, we are on a projection which has a moral claim on us and which will burden us if we take it on during the manifestation of this ongoing existence of ours via death and the next level, and if we take these moral laws with us, if we let them stick on us, then in this next manifestation we may find they leaves us without defense of a different kind of world entirely, something that you will end up considering a sort of hell, namely you let the childhood ideas of right and wrong color youth thinking and will poison your future by disarming you like an idiot. Don’t get sucked in by the moral stuff, it will color your future looking and you will act against your own interest.

So it is beginning now to look like this. We introduce Jesus into the equation. Jesus is saying this: believe me, oh humans, there is a parting of the ways in this life where a choice is required, namely a choice between self and all, and if you choose self then in the next transformation via death you will find yourself in a realm of beings just like yourself and you will be left to fend for yourselves in such a world, peopled by beings whose total being is Self. Kant uses that expression and I think it is apt: if you chose the route of self, then you abandon the commune of all humans together, and you go out on your own without the restrain of any morality whatsoever and where all things are permitted and it is only a question of the power of each Self relative to the other Selfs. He called this hell.

If you choose to opt for the commune then this is my promise to you, oh my beloved, you will be happy and you will be happy as a one among many, and that is the greatest happiness (like that of the Holy Trinity). You will be with me. And you will be with God. And you will be with each other.

Now, it seems to me at least, that those in the middle will simply be left to the wisdom and mercy of God, If they have chosen any commune over Self then they may be admitted into the Garden of Happiness where they can be happy to the extent of their capacity, and so without complaints.

So now it nicely seems to me that we have this situation. Kant is giving us the object of practical reason itself which is appealing but not convincing, and then we have essentially the same assertion in the sacred histories of the Christians, and those two together should convince all people that Jesus was speaking the truth, and that a choice is to be made in this life to opt for the Self or for the All, and if you opt for the Self you are given to live with other Selfs, and if you choose for the All you are given me and where I am there will you be also, and I will be with the Father, and that means that there will be a happy end to those who are communal in spirit, by choice or by grace of God.

Les Miz has it: who has loved another person and seen the face of God.

According to my personal conception of the scientology thinking they have instituted then those who deliberately and knowingly reject the suggestion of Jesus that a moral aid will be a benefit in the next transaction (at death) while the scientintology thinking will be that it will be a chain, and so get out of that chain now before the next transaction. Or so it seems to me. I’m sort of impressed.

Again, trying to find clarity: there is a choice that must be made in this life and that is the choice of the new life in the moral with Jesus and the de facto choice is the same old life of Self above the moral, above the others. And to those without a clear choice, we leave it up to the Wisdom and Mercy of God. This seems to tie in with Kant’s Highest Good where moral perfection is anticipated, i.e., where the value of the individual is also social as in one for all and all for one, and where happiness is an expectation, a happiness commensurate with moral perfection. So Kant proclaims the feasibility and the moral necessity of the Highest Good, and Jesus then asserts to its reality and fact, and which can be exemplified in the lives of his followers and be subjectively and practically convinced by the transformation that they have witnessed in their own lives.

If you reject the Highest Good and you reject Jesus’s path, then you choose the path of Self and the highest justice demands that you be given that as your future, an existence among Selfs without any moral law at all, and which Jesus calls Hell, and an existence among selfs of a community who love each other and want to look out for each other, and since that community will include Jesus himself God will preside over the banquet and all will be happy, each according to his capacity.

And so I guess the Scientology thing, according to my conception here, exemplifies the conscious entry into Hell where the only thing that counts is self interests, and so: be careful! There some who will boastfully declare they are ready to take on whatever is coming without the least inhibition whatsoever, whatever it takes, and enter Hell willingly. They exemplify to us today what Jesus was pointing at: those who stick with their choice to hell, no matter what Jesus may say. Conscience is an impediment. “Conscience avant!” And a nice connect between Kant’s Highest Good and Jesus proclamation. No wonder Kant declared Jesus “the revolutionary”.

Briefly: Jesus then comes, we are told, as a perfect man, the ideal of humanity itself, and informed us of this choice that must be made and called upon us to choose the good and not to worry about the past but to be assured of a new chance, and so where moral perfection is anticipated and presupposed, and where happiness would reign for all. He then signals this with his own death in leading us the way to the death of the moral corruption (sin) and then by rising from the dead after a certain interval in order to assure his followers that he was right and that they will be successful and indeed finally there is a hope for the world. A certain sort of validation is assured to those who join the way of the band of Jesus, namely that they will find that they are actually growing in communal and family love, but you have to give it a try in order to experience it.

Personal Kantian observation just now: I almost franticly was looking all about for my glasses, spending maybe 30 seconds and wondering and not being able to make sense of the situation, and then somehow I touched them, to remove them, I presume, in order to hold them in my hand in a wondering pose, and then I realized that I was wearing them. And the interesting Kant touch is that the assumption was that I was wearing them the whole time, and not that they should suddenly appeared from nowhere on my nose. I was wearing them and, furthermore, they had been there the entire time that I was looking. I was looking through them. No wonder things seemed so clear to me.

Is it fraudulent? the youth should ask. Or is it a true story?

Here is the Wesleyan pitch, I think: Jesus promises us something which Santa Claus could never provide, namely that we will in fact become new creatures in him and will be able to validate the Jesus story by what is actually working within us and which we experience as growing in love and maturity. So take it from us, the Wesleyans will say, the story is a true story, and the evidence of which, within ourselves, validates the Jesus story. This was Wesley’s opinion, if I am not mistaken. So we become living scriptures.

I think that should be appealing. It promises a brand new chance (“dying” to the world) and it guarantees a success (“resurrecting” to a new nature). This is replicated in the outlook of the Christian, i.e., all can be forgiven and you will find adequate assistance.

So the trick is this: you (the youth) can experience the new promised nature yourself, but only by trying (that’s the cost of knowing). The evidence is there (uptapped), but it can only be spied (actualized) through eyes of faith. Maybe sort of like a face in the cloud. It’s there, but the only way to see it is to look in a certain way and from a certain perspective.

I have been thinking about this idea of the youth having first to become agnostics in order ever to be (thinking) Christians. Perhaps that’s a mission of the church, to make sure the youth can tell the difference between a Santa Claus tale and the tales of Jesus.

I also think that the youth should be apprised of the impact of choosing atheism (as a mode of living and thinking), namely:
1. where there is no objective meaning to existence and
2. where happiness lost now is lost forever and
3. where are only so many days left for possible happiness, i.e., it is a here and now thing only.

Do the youth want to be driven by that understanding of atheism? And to promote it as the make up of a world they would want to live in and to raise their children in?

And so the Jesus story is not merely validated in the experiences of the Christians but provides a basis (given the atheist alternative) for a compelling wish that the Jesus story were indeed true. So we would want it true, the youth might think, and then there is promised a certain evidence of its truth by giving it a try. And what it promises is something you (these youth) will also want, a world of brotherly love among all persons.

I guess the Wesleyan is saying this: there is compelling evidence of a something strange and marvelous in the new birth but it’s like the rainbow, i.e., it is certainly there to see and experience, but you have to see it from a certain perspective, and that perspective is that of a follower of the Way in faith. It’s there but you have to live it.

It’s like the Wesleyans say: when you come to experience in your hearts and spirits that you are becoming better and more loving to all, you will then have evidence that there is a God and who loves you so much, and it is then that you can achieve to the level of experience where you see that you now love God.* You can love him because he first loved you, by changing you into a new creation (but only with your permission). And perhaps he did it in order that we might come to love him as we do a loving parent, i.e., beyond ritual and enthusiasm. He wants us to love him the same way that we can love our own parents. With that intensity or even more. And that is the promise of the gospel story about Jesus, that by opting for God you will come to know him and recognize him because you will come to love him as your ultimate parent.

[* Les Miserables puts it so: "And remember the truth that once was spoken, that to love another person is to see the face of God".

Nutshell. The atheist “moral” state abhorrent to the youth,* and this is a negative evidence for the existence of God (bringing us to wish for God). And then there is a positive evidence which is in the experience of a follower of Jesus, the so-called transformation or new birth.

[* When thoroughly understood. See Handbook for Atheist Youth.]

Concerning now creeds: I like the idea of reciting the creeds in solidarity of spirit and not for argumentation or binding the conscience. This ties in nicely with Kant’s notion of the atonement, where Jesus dies in solidarity with those he called to follow him (who must die to sin) and so in the role of an elder brother who not only shows the way but even leads the way. Jesus led the way that all who want to experience the new birth must tread.

One nice and interesting option for the youth who choose to accept the Jesus story is that there are two paths of the Way, the right and left footprint of Jesus. The right follow an externally imposed of statute law of some sort, more or less, and is called a Law-abiding Christian. The left is free of all externally imposed law (Acts 15) and and is subject to the internalized law of love alone, and hence is called the Free Christian. The Free Christian has absolutely no inhibition to undertake any act which he considers (according to his best understanding) to be the loving act for one and for all. The Free Christian plans to be judged by Jesus himself (Romans 4:14) and where the conscience is clear to both. His practical dedication is to live the law of love.*

[* The two feet are a provocative consideration for understanding these two approaches to the Christian faith. It is quicker to grasp by using the example of hands. There is only a single concept of hand which indicates a palm with four fingers attached  on one side and a thumb on an adjacent side and which all close toward the palm. And yet there are two different manifestations of this concept, each of which is a perfect example of the hand, namely the left and right hands, for despite the fact they are each a perfect representation of this one concept, they cannot wear the same glove, just as the two feet cannot wear the same shoe.  And so both paths of the Way are theoretically identical as Christian , but still different in practice.**]

[** This is similar to the concept of the trinity.]