Pick the term:
1) Accurate
2) Infallible
3) Precise
4) Sufficient
5) Effective

Which one (a) do you like? (b) do you feel best represents a man’s ability to comprehend perfect Deity? (c) is most communicative within the general populus?

Now, I know these are 3 separate questions, and likely to have 3 separate list-rankings.. but I’m prone to think of them in the same way, with #2 most-popular in dogmatic minds and #1 more happily in my mind. Do they say/mean the same thing? Sure they do. So why the dogmatic need (fear.. what? no love in fear?) to “defend” terminology? This is, obviously, a matter of “official” terms vs. common-man’s thinking, but seriously, there is such a thing as a dead language.. and dead orthodoxy.. and I’m usually pro-life, and anti-death.

And since we’re on about fear, here’s mine: “I’ve heard you (Mr. Dogmatist) use the same terms as so many other people who I’ve heard use blatant fallacy and ill-logic.. so, I’m scared that you keep using the same terms.. Cuz anyone can use the terms/language, but that doesn’t mean they ‘get it’.. and I most of all want to know that you understand what life, love, truth & Jesus are all about.. and I just can’t do that unless you get creative with your vocab.”

Of course, the reply then comes: “But I don’t know you’re withing orthodoxy unless you use the proper terms.”

Is this all we have? Such an impasse of communication?

As to the importance of life and the reality of it communicating something, we might all agree. Specifically what it’s communicating, to whom, what it means, and the consequences.. that’s not so agreed upon. We understand that sin is bad, and our lives speak our theology. That’s the beginning of one of many arguments towards a holy(character of God) daily lifestyle.

But life isn’t that clean; that sin we try to avoid is undermining, active against us, confusing us, giving us a new foundation which we try to live upon.. and most sadly, it works. Life doesn’t crash-and-burn 100% when you sin. It’s a slow-way down. And the energy of youth is often enough to recover the tail-spins which can come quick. We simply learn to “not do that again.” And that’s what I’ll call “bottom-up” living: when experience teaches, and we build an idealism/expectation from it.

There’s another method, obviously “top-down”.. where we demand our idealism (from whatever source, be it parents, church/religion, youthful hopes, etc). No matter the experience, we will fight against reality to hold to our hopes. Ethics are strong, requirements high. Thanks to American Pragmatism, the latter is laughed at, and the former a stronghold of American secular living.

But my Theology says a few things.. That how I live says stuff about God. Now, for finer points, my life says stuff about God because I claim his way as my own. The “gap” question here is does everyone’s life communicate their theology? The simple answer is yes. But the other ‘gap’ question is, “Does everyone’s life communicate their perspective on God?” And the corollary, “Does everyone’s life display their commentary on God?”

Now, take the simple Christian, who is able to follow the idealism of the conservative american variety. He lives in an undisturbed box that he claims God wants him in, and he has no trouble attaining his perfection. Likely pity is his take on the rest of the sin-filled world. What is he communicating? Transcendence of and isolated God, yes. Immanence of Jesus that eats with the sinners? No. Immanance that loves and helps? No. Certainly, we can call this ‘Christianity’ a half-breed– mixed with selfish isolationism/protectionism of keeping oneself clean first AND last.

Take the avant-guard Christian.. often found on uni campuses, stuck(whether by his own choice or the housing dep’t) with a roomie who sleeps around and invites him to do the same.. Challenged on all fronts to NOT get up on sunday for fellowship, and challenged even on Sunday by people who are in the previous category, and have no concept to help him towards a holiness which is God’s. Immanence is not his trouble.. he’s IN the world, clearly. The transcendence of God’s character which he is originally designed for no longer seems reasonable, possible. The people he meets “outside the box” and still appear happy challenge.

Now, about those people he meets, out there in the world. Some who are taken by their sin and revel in it. Claim it as an identity. What are they saying about God? (1) Perhaps that they have no knowledge of his claim to holiness? Or that they have knowledge (Romans 1!) but there’s just no one ’round confirming it, encouraging them, helping them realize the goodness and long-term best. (2) Alternatively, they are unaware the connection of their daily lives to consequence.. communicating to God that they value something other than him. That’s a scary thing, and I think most people don’t realize their actions are communicating this.

Precisely.

I don’t think I’m aware of this either. I’m not convinced the church is communicating this enough; I’m not convinced that’s my message I take to those in the world.

This means that that college-roommate who’s liberal with his sexuality is directly saying God’s meaning and purpose in sexuality isn’t compelling, valuable, or of any pragmatic use. And the church is quick to jump to try and recover this message (often without the theological base, too!)But to the one who has never heard or perhaps has forgotten, his life isn’t about God, and it isn’t about communicating anything. It’s just as self-centred as the protectionist Christian, only exactly in the opposite direction. (and in this case, the protectionist christian is “better” only because he’s got 1 problem of selfishness not 2!)So selfishness of all is evident. All are indicted, no reason or cause for anything but humility. But pride fills up instead, denying consequence– precisely of God’s concern of such matters.

———-

Restart.

At this point, I’m confused. I started off this post regarding my friend who’s sin is her identity. She’s happy.. honestly happy. She’s got a life that’s working enough for her. There’s enough people confirming her actions, and there’s enough people able to keep her going. All people live by what they see and feel. Bottom-up experiential living is the norm. And that is authentic, which is often more than in the top-down lives.

But I feel I’m squished in the middle. I’ve lived both top-down (lead to such inauthenticity that lead to depression) and I’ve lived bottom-up, which can lead to frustration.

I know God’s message to me is love. That’s enough to solve the frustration of bottom-up living, get oneself out of it’s addictions and demands for peace and ease.

Perhaps that’s one of the homosexual issues. They get frustrated with the opposite sex, while being so comfortable with those who are like-minded and so retract from those who think, act, value differently instead of entering in to the messy other. Just like a married man who doesn’t know what to do with his wife or children, and so retracts into work or his hobbies or an affair where he DOES know what to do with, where he finds solace and ease. Fact is, both are sin. Both are not living fully, both are self-protectionist, and both are “happy” ..just one takes more work: fighting self and ease.

———–

Round 3:

So what of it all? Our lives are filled with our own anti-consequential desires, decisions & actions, all communicating that I’d rather live my bottom-up way than any top-down idealism keeping me from pragmatic reality. All the while, breaking God’s heart, shoving him aside, missing out on an authenticity deeper than the termites have eaten away.

Now, that’s not to say that God’s way is as the conservatives make it out to be. And that’s the confusing part for everyone involved. They present a highly in-authentic, illogical, top-down idealism which only works inside their own box of pretty-pretty-land. That’s not palatable, let alone tasty to most. And it’s not God’s design, hope nor future for any of us.

What am I to say? God’s broken heart over our denial of him is ‘ok’? Our lives communicating constant rejection of him inconsequential? Is there a difference between me trying to not reject him, and me giving up, giving in to my natural choices which speak rejection? And maybe my own effort will only build my pride.

I’ve got to say, the homosexual, the addicted-to-sports-male and the protectionist Christian are of the same tree. All act out of the same motives, though some more hidden than others. Telling God, “f*** you!” nicely doesn’t keep you in the kingdom.

All I can find that is true is continual recognition of all this and of the final payment for these crimes by God himself, and the continual attempts to value him, his ways, his kingdom.. everything else will confuse, everything else is noise.There is no “best” life. There is no one who achieves. We all rationalize and twist and turn.

I’ve been accused by a friend of ‘doing the same thing as the modernists’; that is, building a structure for all the pieces in life. And at face value, that’s right, I am doing the same thing. But there’s more than face value.

Take this dilemma: A friend comes up and tells how she learned a new great way to stretch (in yoga class). But you think yoga is from the devil.

Typical question: is it moral? (read; should I do it/agree with it?)
Typical answer: Fear. (read: yes it’s moral, no I shouldn’t)

Notice the pieces in play vs. the structure (context).
Pieces:
1) body
2) stretching
3) yoga
3.1) spiritual influence: yoga
3.2) bodily influence: stretching
4) spiritual influence: devil’s action in the world

Modernistic-Fundamental-Christian Structure:
1) We both have bodies that need stretching (amoral statement likely to be accepted by both parties)
2) Yoga provides negative spiritual influence ‘hidden’ in bodily influence (fundy-christian only idea)
3) Yoga’s spiritual influence is INSEPARABLE from it’s physical influence (fundy-christian only idea)
4) Therefore, throw the baby out with the bathwater. (conclusion)

PoMo (independent of religion) Structure:
1) We both have bodies that need stretching (amoral statement likely to be accepted by both parties)
2) Yoga provides spiritual influence ‘hidden’ in bodily influence (potentially troublesome idea, depending on what kind of influence)
3) Yoga’s spiritual influence IS SEPARABLE from it’s physical influence (PoMo only idea)
4) Therefore, any negative spiritual influence can be separated from any physical activity.
4.1) Corollary: Yoga may or may not be ‘bad’, but elements can still be ‘good’.

This one’s easy: it’s the ‘inseparable’ element which is the killer. It’s an assumption. And whether you (a) think about for just a second or (b) don’t, depends whether your conclusion is valid. Because if #3 isn’t valid, then #4 (conclusion) is wrong, and we’re left looking like an idiot. This is the resolution I’m referring to. (previously labelled ‘blanket statement’ or ‘generalization’ by the public). It’s not just a question for debate, it’s about a perception of the world which leaves us looking like idiots or sane men. Maybe I’m the crazy one, what ever happened to a little bit of ‘protestant work ethic’ applied to intellectual work? This isn’t even close to a 5lb weight to lift, and will rapidly get Hebrews 5 “milk vs. meat” label applied!

Let me display another spin to this:
Yoga has an ideology, like Catholicism does. Icons mean something in Catholicism. Is this meaning universal, automatic, created in nature (general revelation) or is it man-made, like-unto a work of art or piece of literature? Fact is, the stone is God-made, the carving may be God-ordained, but the purpose of “getting one’s mind on the reality of said sculpted saint” is hardly in the Bible. So it’s likely man’s idea. It’s a good idea. It’s admirable. I’d expect it from someone over 1-2k years of history of any ideology. So we have a piece of rock which has one purpose attached to it by man, but that rock could have been alternatively a paper weight. Or in a grinding mill.

Likewise the body in motion is a creation-level entity, for various application & association. Any given motion (hailing a taxi vs waving hello) is independent of context, until it is contextualized (man-made associations attached — Semiotics anyone?)
Looks like we’re dumped into “to the pure, all things are pure” debate.

My point is simple: for any element, there are plenty of facets and connectable joints (legos, knex, etc). That’s creation-level elements & pieces. Various ideologies attach each peice in certain ways. Some are more flexible (leaving joints/facets open for further attachment, like hinduism) or some are more rigid and demanding (where joints/sides are closed off from touching anything). Modernism constructed a reality in a certain structure, presuming it was the ONLY way it could be built. Fundamental Christianity came along and reacted, creating a counter-structure, with the SAME rigidity. So I simply ask, is Fundamental Christianity ‘true’ christianity or merely a bi-product of modernism? What if there were ‘open’ joints and blocks which could allow for some rearranging? If the WHOLE structure were freely rearrangable, then Christianity would become nothing, and I’m not fond of ’standing up for nothin’. So can we please have a mediate position?

Would you please understand me and my thinker-types? I promise I’m not anti-trinity, anti-virgin birth, anti-atonement. I just like unified, cross-connected, higher-resolution thinking & speaking due to these open joints that are freely connectable to previously missed/unspoken connections (hence my desire for a new vocabulary). There’s a big difference between me and the old-school Modernists and new-school PoMo’s– both think the whole thing’s a sham (fully reconnectable). And I’m certainly different than late-modern dumbed-down all-about-me sell-outs.

“..without adequate public debate” is an interesting phrase. What’s that all about? Likely, that in a democratic environment, this is important that the people *feel they have the power*. Ahh the sensibilities of the masses. While I find crowd behavior easy to mock, in this case it’s important. It’s the choice between public frenzy & outrage vs. a peaceable relationship between ruler/ruled.

And I have trouble with it, because is it really about the public feeling ok with things? feeling they have power? When is emotionality bankrupt?

Let’s spin this one in a different context: parenting. There’s 2 ways to tell a child ‘no’. 1) tell him no (period). 2) talk through it. The trouble comes when #2 is all a sham, when no amount of talking would ever change the authority’s position. Now, besides that being the Straw-man fallacy. It’s really just #1, only worse: you’re mocking the child’s reason (hint: demeaning them!)

Notice how false-discussion only works when, in both cases, whoever is under the authority is moved emotionally. This is the case for smaller children of course, but what of rapidly-becoming rational(let’s hope) late-youth/collegians? Sure, youth are more emo than adults, but let’s take a decently grounded & rational college kid. All of a sudden any intellect he/she may have is sent back to grammar school: No, you’re really just dumb. Hardly good parenting.

Aside: It’s not really democracy when ppl don’t have the power. How crazy is it that I have to choose in unsatisfactorily large probabilities in elections. I don’t get to vote over issues. No one asks me, and no one tells me what issues go on in government. Rather, instead, I get to choose someone who likely is uninformed about the 45 issues I value deeply, and instead only plays to a generic set of 10-20 ‘hot topics’ which I’m usually ambivalent about.

And of course parenting is hardly democracy( the power isn’t in the children), but consider power vs. love vs. knowledge vs. respect. It’s a multi-faceted arena. To ignore half of those and make it about one or two topics only is degrading reality, and living in a lowered-resolution (photography/printing metaphor) idealism. It may work some of the time, but the edges rapidly become ‘gray’ (read: filled with injustice). To take a picture that shows all the colors and fine grains and blur it into a 2-tone, 4 block image? Injustice to the reality which God created, and injustice to your God-created mind which is capable of handling more than you let it.

redemption as buying vs. freeing. freedom requires buying. Redemption of israel from romans could never be bought. redemption from death unto life in God is entirely possible.

I was thinkin’ about this randomly this morning (my brain auto-feeds itself early morning content!!) It’s the whole platonic beatific vision (intellectualism) turned monasticism turned modernism’s protectionist/priority thing.

“It’s the greatest command, so we must do it!” .. think ppl unwaveringly. Nevermind Romans 4, nevermind 1 john 4: The Father’s love in Jesus is what starts this whole thing, and what sustains this whole thing.

People, being ethically challenged by Jesus’ own words to let go of this their value system of “I’m fulfilling the greatest command by being monastic” don’t know what to make of the other options. Less “spiritual”? No, spiritual is not antithetical to physical. Modern constructions of Conservative and Liberal aren’t the end-all-be-all (praise God!).

In the end, I will not discount that we are all broken and in need of love. Rather I prioritize that need being fulfilled higher than Jesus’ command for us to love the Father. Besides, didn’t Groundhog Day, The Matrix, and Bruce Almighty teach us anything about commanded love?

Mom once told me that she tried to raise me and my sister without worry or fear of whether we’d have enough food or clothing.. maintaining a certain level of childhood innocence.

Such an idea is lost on the past few generations — allowing their children to watch the full-on violence and sex in ‘R’ movies. Talk about taboo to my 9yr old mind!

But this is no posting about child psych.

Rather, somewhere along the way my concept of reality wasn’t sufficient. I realized wholly lacking in my perspective was any idea of battle or fighting. This is rapidly a problem in the ‘real world’; not all fighting is bad. Bingo. That’s the emasculating idea that many of us were raised under. All fighting is bad. There is no reason for battles. Lies. Insufficient Lies.

There is a battle raging around us. This is clear historical Christian teaching. Likewise, to not take sides in this battle is to be taken out. But our identity as soldiers is not concrete nor in solitude. Soldiers exist to protect all the art of life and civility that we all so deeply want. The soldiers life is one of the hardest; he is like a stone wall the external fire rages against, yet the other side of this wall, the children play, the baby feels fully secure.

Full knowledge of suffering

So this is life, and the reality lived in. Like it or not, it holds powers over you and I.. life, death, pain, joy. We are all a ruddy bunch of addicts, the most of us. All trying to posture and pose to maximize the joy and life or minimize the death of pain.

Call me crazy, but that sounds shallow. Why would we admire those who come out on top of suffering? Why do so many storylines have trouble in them? There’s a growing majority of the masses which seem happy being addicted & shallow — filling the gap between the happiness reality can provide and the happiness they expect.

It’s just that: what baseline of pleasure and pain do you or I expect to take on in any given week ..day? How far do we expect people to screw us over? Not to live in paranoia or fear, but to be taken in surprise at the pain of this life doesn’t seem so great an idea either.

4.12: do not be astonished that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as though something strange were happening to you

This is not prosperity! This is life, and it hurts. The term suffering contains more than direct persecution — beatings, jailings, and the self-focused question of “would i be able to endure?” Fact is, we are left in this world, under the reign of the enemy’s darkness, and under the pressure of divine teaching. Reality: suffering. And it’s this painful reality of ours that isn’t left alone. Jesus (God).. suffered. What ought I expect? And what posture ought I have towards all the marketing of modern idealism? There used to be a great term for this: plastic. Used for any and all things cheap and fake. Good term. I can’t find a reference for this usage, but I think it was part of the 60’s hippie reaction.

Deep

So many think they’re being ‘deep’.. or bitter-cynical-self-justifying-liberal when they ask, “Why all the pain in this world?” Or more directed at the personal: “Why doesn’t God stop all this pain?” I’m not so convinced this question (even if it were unanswerable) to be worthy to self-justify. Or satisfy.

I can’t say I’m a mystic about much, but I must admit there’s something deeply reasonable and satisfying to hold that reality now is full of suffering, that it’s for all of our best (if not for sorting us all out!).. There’s something amazing about these verses:

what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?¹⁸And if the righteous are barely saved, what will become of the ungodly and sinners?¹⁹So then let those who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator as they do good.

Pain is planned.. woven in the fabric of the lives we’ve got. Pain is worthy of trust.. not in itself, but worthy of bringing out trust in us.

Love is so sweet because of suffering..
Suffering is made bearable only with love.

Most of us who’ve been ’round the block in church have heard how 1 Peter is all filled with one situational topic: suffering. You know, “what profit is suffering for doing bad” and the like. And that is precisely the topic at hand. Not suffering for doing good, as I’ve been tendent to prersume this book is focusing on.

Let’s try that verse again: 1 Peter 2.20

For what credit is it if you sin and are mistreated and endure it? But if you do good and suffer and so endure, this finds favor with God.

Rather obvious, of course. No real mention of who’s inflicting the suffering, but we can generally assume that sin brings 2 things: natural, systemic, inherent, ‘built-into-reality’ consequence, and Divine punishment/correction. The brand of Christianity I’ve grown up in has sadly jumped on the latter, holding to a much more (unknowingly) almost occasionalist perspective!

I’m not denying the latter; I uphold that God certainly does teach us through suffering. And to that end, I’ll continue on to what was clarified for me in church today: 1 Peter 4.1:

So, since Christ suffered in the flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same attitude, because the one who has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin

I’ve heard and read this over and over and have been drawn to confusion. Not by my own lack of knowledge or capacities, but rather I feel an ideological hurdle has been placed for me by anyone I’ve heard mention this verse. Simply: what does it mean to be “finished with sin”? First guess is justification. That’s the typical understanding of Christianity: conversion. Salvation. Once. Back then when I was 6. There’s a magnetic attraction which (Concrete-operational!) people have for this one out of at LEAST three parts to the full experience of Christian living. And what happens when we obsess and take this verse to be about justification? Self-abuse. “If I suffer when I sin, then I’m paying for it, and that’ll solve the problem and make me right with God.” Dear God, no. But it sure sounds like that doesn’t it?

Perhaps we ought read on to the next verse or two:

in that he spends the rest of his time on earth concerned about the will of God and not human desires.³For the time that has passed was sufficient for you to do what the non-Christians desire. You lived then in debauchery, evil desires, drunkenness, carousing, boozing, and wanton idolatries.

So we ought be like Christ and suffer? Yes. In a justifying manner? No. You’re “finished with sin” meaning, “You’re done. Don’t do it anymore. That life is to be over. Haven’t you had enough?” And what, exactly, are we presumed to have had enough of? Sin itself? Sure, but return to the prior verse: sin has natural consequences which are painful. Sufferable. And it’s in this pain-filled condition the love of Christ finds us. As U2 said, “always pain before a child is born..” (which my church performed live.) Give it a few days and hit this link for the actual sermon.

And if that’s not enough, a few verse later we find:

So be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of prayer

Hmm.. seems to be a good solution for “man, I don’t pray enough.”

And

Above all keep your love for one another fervent, because love covers a multitude of sins.

Again, not in justification, but in fellowship-community. Hmm.. that does seem to be the solution, doesn’t it. God sure must have thought so when he, (long before U2) called us to sing, “take these lips, so quick to criticise, take these lips, and give ‘em a kiss.”

This past Sunday’s liturgy involved the confession of misuse of intellect and imagination. My mind has been working underground on that generic idea since, and with luck, here we have a post.

As a child, I could not stand scary movies. (As an aside, I couldn’t stand the suspense of mystery novels either!) I could never walk up the stairs to my room, or from the basement– I’d have to run. Fear. A compulsion that ghosts or scary things were after me. If it was dark, and if I had my back turned, then they were there! I’ve called it childish and irrational, and tried my best over the past 15 yrs to keep my cool, with limited success.

In another vein, the past few years have made me aware of my disinterest in fantasy novels or movies.. Fantasy as in sci-fi or anything with gnomes, fairies, unicorns, orks, trees that walk or talk (no matter how many boulders they throw), wizards, etc. No LOTR or Narnia for me.

As for exhibit ‘C’ toward my non-standard imagination, my childhood was filled with two things: Dinosaurs and Legos. (Note the glaring lack of comic books like most boys). My childhood was not taken over my narrative or storyline of any sort. I still don’t read novels like many adults do, be it Harry Potter or Ted Dekker (Here’s to you Tim!). Rather I was caught up the the amazement of the granduer of dinosaurs, of the reality of another time, and of construction and interworkings of pieces of any sort– stretching them to their limit.

My imagination was non-narrative, but instead, constructivist and ideological, if not mechanical. Any wonder why I now take interest in contental philosophy? Sure I enjoy logic, but I’m not a pure analytic in my approach. I like considering the large ideas at play within the masses.. perhaps my world is a world of lego-men after all!

But tonight after watching a zombie-filled movie, as I walked from shadowy room to shadowy room in the winter dark, I was struck by this idea of imagination: My mind is strong, and it seems to project the non-real into reality. My mind is unable to make monsters appear before me and others like true wizardry, but for all intents and purposes, my mind is overactive enough to make me believe )behave) as if I could be attacked out of nowhere.

Take this into another realm.. many have trouble with depression, OCD or even trusting others. Is this simply a matter of having a strong, overactive mind projecting issues and concerns into one’s reality which are not? A matter of having the mind “push back” instead of simply being a tool to process and understand? Imagination running wild of a new sort?

Or again, all the ideologies in the world, from Democritus’ atoms, Descartes’ reality, Kant’s Phenomenology, Hegel’s history, Modernism’s dream, Christianity’s hope of a New Heaven and Earth, Nirvana, even Hindu castes.. these are all strictly in the category of imagination. The one difference would be whether any one of these dreams were to pan out. Just because something is unseen does not make it imaginary, but as well, to live in a presumed imaginary world which ends up being reality, that would not be so foolish of the faithful.

And precisely the point: the faithful trust that reality is more in line with their imagination than what is commonly held. This can lead to discrepency over the logical outcome of lifestyles given what is or is not included and prioritized in the ideology. This idea of faithfulness is also consistent with the requirement to “remember the dream.”

A Disciplined mind.
Something I don’t hear mentioned often is disciplining the mind. Discipline, in general, is spoken of, perhaps only in reference to one’s will or perhaps emotions, but training one’s mind to swap between reality and imagination would seem to be of use, for avoiding mental illness, as well as keeping faithfulness.

this morning, what i truly only want is social..
reading the news or finding the latest toys won’t do it
not to recieve.. not as in some transaction..
but yes, to know(trust/convinced) i am loved.

is it evidence? no.
it is experience.
experience which is cognitive, but emotionally *E*ffected.
but i in myself must be convinced..
and i do think that i am rationally convinced when i am emotionally changed.
until then i’m a bitter skeptic..
So through my bitter skepticism, i say in semi-blind faith (truly in faith, trust in previous knowledge & experience) “Come.. and love me..”
with the follow-up.. “I know I need it.. you”
and the poem:
“oh how I hurt so! And I’m so very sure you bring it! i know you want me, i know i deny. my bitter skepticism so strong! some days i can deny & ignore & be strong/sufficient.. but it only adds up & builds the tidal wave.”

this makes so much more sense than any purely intellectual approach.. using my will(which is only arrogance- not needing Jesus, only self) to bash my emotions.. rather, here, i have a legitimate problem, with the true solution, founded on truth deeper than i like, but at least as deep as i need. and it’s wholly logical.. but the will and emo’s won’t take pure logic alone.