This is a direct continuation of Kings Letter From Birmingham Jail (Part One of Four): https://lemmy.world/post/40826680

"We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jet-like speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "removed," your middle names becomes "boy" (however old you are), and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried [persistently harass] by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God [the laws of love]. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas: an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured." - Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., Chapter Eighteen, "Birmingham Jail"

This is a direct continuation of Kings Letter From Birmingham Jail (Part One of Four): https://lemmy.world/post/40826578

"We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jet-like speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "removed," your middle names becomes "boy" (however old you are), and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried [persistently harass] by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God [the laws of love]. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas: an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured." - Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., Chapter Eighteen, "Birmingham Jail"

For context, King graduated high school at fifteen, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from Morehouse college at nineteen, and went on to earn his Bachelor of Divinity from Crozier Theological Seminary and a Doctorate of philosophy from Boston University. He read Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hobbes, Bentham, Mill, Locke and even Marx, to "better understand the appeal of communism for many people," along with many others. I'm sure he read Leo Tolstoy considering Gandhi's profound influence upon him; Gandhi named his Shakram in South Africa "Tolstoy's Farm," as Tolstoy was debately Gandhi's greatest influence. But obviously Tolstoy being Russian and how much his philosophy contradicts with mainstream Christianity, there's no way King would risk the consequences if he championed Tolstoy's philosophy to even the smallest degree; he wouldn't have been able to appeal to the typical white person the way he wanted at this time due to the incredibly negative stigma surrounding communism.

Within we find King responding to criticisms from fellow clergymen regarding his "nonviolent direct action" approach. He was arrested while participating in peaceful protest along with fifty others while marching to city hall in Birmingham, Alabama. He speaks on several different topics including nonviolent campaigns, Socrates, the difference between a "just" and "unjust" law, and his "deep disappointment" for "the laxity of the Church."

"MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine goodwill and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every Southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eight-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here. But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.

Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their hometowns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own hometown. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Moreover, I am cognizant [aware] of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative. In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying [deny or contradict] the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants—for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium [a temporary ceasing of an activity] on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic withdrawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the commissioner of public safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer. You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies [a person who annoys or criticizes others in order to provoke them into action] to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Neibuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly [to an unwarranted degree] from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." - Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., Chapter Eighteen, "Birmingham Jail"

Kings Letter From Birmingham Jail (Part Two of Four): https://lemmy.world/post/41144663

For context, King graduated high school at fifteen, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from Morehouse college at nineteen, and went on to earn his Bachelor of Divinity from Crozier Theological Seminary and a Doctorate of philosophy from Boston University. He read Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hobbes, Bentham, Mill, Locke and even Marx, to "better understand the appeal of communism for many people," along with many others. I'm sure he read Leo Tolstoy considering Gandhi's profound influence upon him; Gandhi named his Shakram in South Africa "Tolstoy's Farm," as Tolstoy was debately Gandhi's greatest influence. But obviously Tolstoy being Russian and how much his philosophy contradicts with mainstream Christianity, there's no way King would risk the consequences if he championed Tolstoy's philosophy to even the smallest degree; he wouldn't have been able to appeal to the typical white person the way he wanted at this time due to the incredibly negative stigma surrounding communism.

Within we find King responding to criticisms from fellow clergymen regarding his "nonviolent direct action" approach. He was arrested while participating in peaceful protest along with fifty others while marching to city hall in Birmingham, Alabama. He speaks on several different topics including nonviolent campaigns, Socrates, the difference between a "just" and "unjust" law, and his "deep disappointment" for "the laxity of the Church."

"MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine goodwill and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every Southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eight-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here. But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.

Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their hometowns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own hometown. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Moreover, I am cognizant [aware] of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative. In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying [deny or contradict] the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants—for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium [a temporary ceasing of an activity] on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic withdrawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the commissioner of public safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer. You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies [a person who annoys or criticizes others in order to provoke them into action] to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Neibuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly [to an unwarranted degree] from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." - Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., Chapter Eighteen, "Birmingham Jail"

Kings Letter From Birmingham Jail (Part Two of Four): https://lemmy.world/post/41144077

Faith: the will to believe in a truth; "the knowledge of the meaning of man's life"; that he gives to it.

"There arose a contradiction from which there were two ways out: either what I called rational wasn't as rational as I thought; or what seemed to me irrational wasn't as irrational as I thought. And I started to test the line of reasoning of my rational knowledge. Testing the line of reasoning of rational knowledge, I found it quite correct. The conclusion that life is nothing was unavoidable, but I saw an error. The error lay in the fact that my thinking didn't correspond to the question I had asked. The question was this: why do I live, that is, what is real and lasting that will come out of my illusory and impermanent life, what meaning does my finite existence have in this infinite world? And to answer this question I studied life.

The answering of all possible questions about life obviously could not satisfy me because my question, however simple it might appear at the beginning, included a requirement for the explanation of the finite by the infinite and the reverse. I was asking, "What is the meaning of my life outside time, outside cause, outside space?" But I was asking the question, "What is the meaning of my life within time, within cause, and within space?" The result was that after a long labor of thought, I answered, "None." In my reasoning I constantly equated—I couldn't do otherwise—finite with finite and infinite with infinite, and so the result I got was what it had to be: a force is a force, a substance is a substance, will is will, infinity is infinity, nothing is nothing, and there could be no further result.

Something like this happens in mathematics when, thinking you are solving an equation, you produce a solution of identity. The line of reasoning is correct but in the result you get the answer a = a or x = x or o = o. The same happened with my reasoning about the question of the meaning of my life. The answers given by the whole of science to the question only produced identities.

And indeed strictly rational science, which begins like Descartes with completely doubting everything, rejects all the knowledge recognized by faith and constructs everything anew on the laws of reason and experience, and cannot give any other answer to the question of life but the very one I received—an indeterminate [not exactly known, established, or defined] answer. It was only at the start that science seemed to me to give a positive answer—the answer of Schopenhauer: life has no meaning; it is evil. But having looked into the matter I understood that the answer isn't positive, but was just my feeling expressing it as such. A strictly expressed answer, as articulated by the Brahmins and Solomon and Schopenhauer, is only an indeterminate answer or an identity, o = o; life appearing to me as nothing is nothing. So philosophical science denies nothing but only answers that it cannot solve this question, that for it the solution remains indeterminate.

Having answered this, I understood that it was impossible to look for the answer to my question in rational science, and that the answer given by rational science is only an indication that the answer can only be given with the question being put differently, only when there is introduced into the reasoning the question of the relationship of the finite to the infinite. I also understood that however irrational and distorted the answers given by faith, they have the advantage that into every answer they introduce the relationship of the finite to the infinite, without which there cannot be an answer. However I might put the question, "How should I live?" the answer is "By God's law." "What that is real will come out of my life?" "Eternal suffering or eternal bliss." "What meaning of life is there that is not destroyed by death?" "Union with the infinity of God, paradise."

So apart from rational science, which previously seemed to me the only one, I was inescapably led to recognize that the whole of living mankind has another irrational science—faith, which gives the possibility of living. All the irrationality of faith remained the same for me as before but I couldn't fail to recognize that it alone gives mankind answers to the questions of life and consequently the possibility of living. Rational science had led me to recognize that life is meaningless; my life stopped and I wanted to destroy myself. Looking around at people, at the whole of mankind, I saw that people do live and affirm that they know the meaning of life. I looked at myself: I did live as long as I knew the meaning of life. Like others I too was given the meaning of life and the possibility of life by faith. Looking further at people from other countries, at my contemporaries, and at those who lived before us, I saw one and the same thing. Where there is life, ever since mankind has existed faith gives the possibility of living, and the main features of faith are everywhere and always one and the same.

Whatever the faith and whatever the answers and to whomever it might give them, every answer from faith gives the finite existence of man a meaning of the infinite—a meaning that is not destroyed by suffering, privations and death. That means in faith alone can one find the meaning and potential of life. And I understood that faith in its most essential meaning is not just "the unveiling of unseen things" and so forth, it isn't revelation (that is only a description of one of the signs of faith), it's not just the relationship of man to God (one needs to define faith and then God, but not to define faith through God), it's not agreement with what one has been told by someone (as faith is most often understood)—faith is the knowledge of the meaning of man's life, as a result of which man does not destroy himself but lives. Faith is the life force. If a man lives, then he believes in something. If he didn't believe that one must live for something, then he wouldn't live. If he doesn't see and doesn't understand the illusoriness of the finite, he believes in the finite; if he does understand the illusoriness of the finite, he must believe in the infinite without which one cannot live.

And I remembered the whole course of my mental labors and I was horrified. It was now clear to me that for a man to be able to live he either had not to see the infinite or have an explanation of the meaning of life in which the finite was equated with the infinite. I had such an explanation but I had no need for it while I believed in the finite, and I began to test it by reason. And with the light of reason I found the whole of my previous explanation to dissolve in dust. But there came a time when I stopped believing in the finite. And then I began to construct out of what I knew, on rational foundations, an explanation that would give the meaning of life; but nothing got constructed. Together with mankind's best minds I came to o = o and was very surprised to get such a solution when nothing else could come of it.

What was I doing when I looked for an answer in the experimental sciences? I wanted to learn why I lived and for that I studied everything outside myself. Clearly I was able to learn a great deal, but nothing of what I needed. What was I doing when I looked for an answer in the philosophical sciences? I studied the thoughts of those people who were in the same position as myself, who had no answer to the question, "Why do I live?" Clearly I could learn nothing other than what I myself knew: that one can know nothing. "What am I?" "Part of the infinite." Now in those few words lies the whole problem. Can mankind have asked this question of itself only yesterday? And really did no one ask himself this question before me—such a simple question coming to the tip of the tongue of any clever child? This question has been asked ever since man has existed; and ever since man has existed, it has been understood that for the question to be answered it has been just as inadequate to equate finite to finite and infinite to infinite, and ever since man has existed, the relationship of finite to infinite has been looked for and expressed.

All these concepts, in which the finite is equated to the infinite and the result is the meaning of life, concepts of God, freedom, good, we submit to logical analysis. And these concepts do not stand up to the criticism of reason. If it weren't so terrible, it would be funny to see the pride and complacency with which like children we take to pieces a watch, remove the spring, make a toy of it, and then are surprised that the watch stops working. The solution of the contradiction between finite and infinite is necessary and valuable, providing an answer to the question whereby life is made possible. And this is the only solution, one we find everywhere, always and among all peoples—a solution coming down out of time in which the life of man has been lost to us, a solution so difficult that we could make nothing like it—this solution we carelessly destroy in order to ask again that question inherent in everyone to which there is no answer. The concepts of infinite God, of the divinity of the soul, of the link between the affairs of man and God, the concepts of moral good and evil, are concepts evolved in the distant history of man's life that is hidden from our eyes, are those concepts without which life and I myself would not be, and rejecting all this labor of all mankind, I want to do everything by myself, alone, anew, and in my own way.

I didn't think so then, but the germs of those thoughts were already in me. I understood firstly that for all our wisdom my position alongside Schopenhauer and Solomon was a stupid one: we understand that life is evil and still we live. This is clearly stupid because if life is stupid—and I do so love all that is rational—then I should clearly destroy life, and no one would be able to challenge this. Secondly I understood that all our reasoning was going around in a vicious circle, like a wheel that has come off its gear. However much, however well we reason, we cannot give an answer to the question, and it will always be o = o, and so our path is likely to be the wrong one. Thirdly, I began to understand that the answers given to faith enshrine the most profound wisdom of mankind, and that I didn't have the right to deny them on the grounds of reason, and that, most importantly, these answers do answer the question of life." - Leo Tolstoy, Confession, Chapter Nine

Faith: the will to believe in a truth; "the knowledge of the meaning of man's life"; that he gives to it.

"There arose a contradiction from which there were two ways out: either what I called rational wasn't as rational as I thought; or what seemed to me irrational wasn't as irrational as I thought. And I started to test the line of reasoning of my rational knowledge. Testing the line of reasoning of rational knowledge, I found it quite correct. The conclusion that life is nothing was unavoidable, but I saw an error. The error lay in the fact that my thinking didn't correspond to the question I had asked. The question was this: why do I live, that is, what is real and lasting that will come out of my illusory and impermanent life, what meaning does my finite existence have in this infinite world? And to answer this question I studied life.

The answering of all possible questions about life obviously could not satisfy me because my question, however simple it might appear at the beginning, included a requirement for the explanation of the finite by the infinite and the reverse. I was asking, "What is the meaning of my life outside time, outside cause, outside space?" But I was asking the question, "What is the meaning of my life within time, within cause, and within space?" The result was that after a long labor of thought, I answered, "None." In my reasoning I constantly equated—I couldn't do otherwise—finite with finite and infinite with infinite, and so the result I got was what it had to be: a force is a force, a substance is a substance, will is will, infinity is infinity, nothing is nothing, and there could be no further result.

Something like this happens in mathematics when, thinking you are solving an equation, you produce a solution of identity. The line of reasoning is correct but in the result you get the answer a = a or x = x or o = o. The same happened with my reasoning about the question of the meaning of my life. The answers given by the whole of science to the question only produced identities.

And indeed strictly rational science, which begins like Descartes with completely doubting everything, rejects all the knowledge recognized by faith and constructs everything anew on the laws of reason and experience, and cannot give any other answer to the question of life but the very one I received—an indeterminate [not exactly known, established, or defined] answer. It was only at the start that science seemed to me to give a positive answer—the answer of Schopenhauer: life has no meaning; it is evil. But having looked into the matter I understood that the answer isn't positive, but was just my feeling expressing it as such. A strictly expressed answer, as articulated by the Brahmins and Solomon and Schopenhauer, is only an indeterminate answer or an identity, o = o; life appearing to me as nothing is nothing. So philosophical science denies nothing but only answers that it cannot solve this question, that for it the solution remains indeterminate.

Having answered this, I understood that it was impossible to look for the answer to my question in rational science, and that the answer given by rational science is only an indication that the answer can only be given with the question being put differently, only when there is introduced into the reasoning the question of the relationship of the finite to the infinite. I also understood that however irrational and distorted the answers given by faith, they have the advantage that into every answer they introduce the relationship of the finite to the infinite, without which there cannot be an answer. However I might put the question, "How should I live?" the answer is "By God's law." "What that is real will come out of my life?" "Eternal suffering or eternal bliss." "What meaning of life is there that is not destroyed by death?" "Union with the infinity of God, paradise."

So apart from rational science, which previously seemed to me the only one, I was inescapably led to recognize that the whole of living mankind has another irrational science—faith, which gives the possibility of living. All the irrationality of faith remained the same for me as before but I couldn't fail to recognize that it alone gives mankind answers to the questions of life and consequently the possibility of living. Rational science had led me to recognize that life is meaningless; my life stopped and I wanted to destroy myself. Looking around at people, at the whole of mankind, I saw that people do live and affirm that they know the meaning of life. I looked at myself: I did live as long as I knew the meaning of life. Like others I too was given the meaning of life and the possibility of life by faith. Looking further at people from other countries, at my contemporaries, and at those who lived before us, I saw one and the same thing. Where there is life, ever since mankind has existed faith gives the possibility of living, and the main features of faith are everywhere and always one and the same.

Whatever the faith and whatever the answers and to whomever it might give them, every answer from faith gives the finite existence of man a meaning of the infinite—a meaning that is not destroyed by suffering, privations and death. That means in faith alone can one find the meaning and potential of life. And I understood that faith in its most essential meaning is not just "the unveiling of unseen things" and so forth, it isn't revelation (that is only a description of one of the signs of faith), it's not just the relationship of man to God (one needs to define faith and then God, but not to define faith through God), it's not agreement with what one has been told by someone (as faith is most often understood)—faith is the knowledge of the meaning of man's life, as a result of which man does not destroy himself but lives. Faith is the life force. If a man lives, then he believes in something. If he didn't believe that one must live for something, then he wouldn't live. If he doesn't see and doesn't understand the illusoriness of the finite, he believes in the finite; if he does understand the illusoriness of the finite, he must believe in the infinite without which one cannot live.

And I remembered the whole course of my mental labors and I was horrified. It was now clear to me that for a man to be able to live he either had not to see the infinite or have an explanation of the meaning of life in which the finite was equated with the infinite. I had such an explanation but I had no need for it while I believed in the finite, and I began to test it by reason. And with the light of reason I found the whole of my previous explanation to dissolve in dust. But there came a time when I stopped believing in the finite. And then I began to construct out of what I knew, on rational foundations, an explanation that would give the meaning of life; but nothing got constructed. Together with mankind's best minds I came to o = o and was very surprised to get such a solution when nothing else could come of it.

What was I doing when I looked for an answer in the experimental sciences? I wanted to learn why I lived and for that I studied everything outside myself. Clearly I was able to learn a great deal, but nothing of what I needed. What was I doing when I looked for an answer in the philosophical sciences? I studied the thoughts of those people who were in the same position as myself, who had no answer to the question, "Why do I live?" Clearly I could learn nothing other than what I myself knew: that one can know nothing. "What am I?" "Part of the infinite." Now in those few words lies the whole problem. Can mankind have asked this question of itself only yesterday? And really did no one ask himself this question before me—such a simple question coming to the tip of the tongue of any clever child? This question has been asked ever since man has existed; and ever since man has existed, it has been understood that for the question to be answered it has been just as inadequate to equate finite to finite and infinite to infinite, and ever since man has existed, the relationship of finite to infinite has been looked for and expressed.

All these concepts, in which the finite is equated to the infinite and the result is the meaning of life, concepts of God, freedom, good, we submit to logical analysis. And these concepts do not stand up to the criticism of reason. If it weren't so terrible, it would be funny to see the pride and complacency with which like children we take to pieces a watch, remove the spring, make a toy of it, and then are surprised that the watch stops working. The solution of the contradiction between finite and infinite is necessary and valuable, providing an answer to the question whereby life is made possible. And this is the only solution, one we find everywhere, always and among all peoples—a solution coming down out of time in which the life of man has been lost to us, a solution so difficult that we could make nothing like it—this solution we carelessly destroy in order to ask again that question inherent in everyone to which there is no answer. The concepts of infinite God, of the divinity of the soul, of the link between the affairs of man and God, the concepts of moral good and evil, are concepts evolved in the distant history of man's life that is hidden from our eyes, are those concepts without which life and I myself would not be, and rejecting all this labor of all mankind, I want to do everything by myself, alone, anew, and in my own way.

I didn't think so then, but the germs of those thoughts were already in me. I understood firstly that for all our wisdom my position alongside Schopenhauer and Solomon was a stupid one: we understand that life is evil and still we live. This is clearly stupid because if life is stupid—and I do so love all that is rational—then I should clearly destroy life, and no one would be able to challenge this. Secondly I understood that all our reasoning was going around in a vicious circle, like a wheel that has come off its gear. However much, however well we reason, we cannot give an answer to the question, and it will always be o = o, and so our path is likely to be the wrong one. Thirdly, I began to understand that the answers given to faith enshrine the most profound wisdom of mankind, and that I didn't have the right to deny them on the grounds of reason, and that, most importantly, these answers do answer the question of life." - Leo Tolstoy, Confession, Chapter Nine

Today, "Christians" call the Garden of Eden, the story about Adam and Eve (https://biblehub.com/lsv/genesis/2.htm), "the fall," but I think there's a more profound moral lesson underneath what man has made it out to be ever since; the supernatural and miracles within being simply a means for people millenniums ago to express thought, words like consciousness not existing in these ancient languages, e.g., "I Am That Which I Am." - Exodus 3:14. And knowledge is knowledge no matter its source and no matter what we've rendered it ever since it's been revealed and labeled.

The trees in Eden represented knowledge of things; a tree for the knowledge of science, a tree for the knowledge of time, math, the experience, etc, and of course of morality—right and wrong; good and evil. Making the tree in the midst of the garden, the "Tree of Life," the tree of the knowledge of life, and to know life is to be aware of it, and to be aware of life is to be conscious, and to be conscious is to be aware of both oneself (selfishness) and everything else (selflessness). That's why it's in the midst of the garden. Consciousness is what gives life to any degree of knowledge on an Earth; no consciousness, no knowledge. When we took a bite of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of morality, and gained its knowledge, we became aware of the right and wrong regarding our knowing of anything, including ourselves, that's why we became aware of our "nakedness" and even felt ashamed. Prior to gaining the knowledge of morality, being naked wouldn't have been right or wrong; a good or bad thing. The same, of course, can be said about death:

"From every tree of the garden eating you eat; but from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you do not eat from it, for in the day of your eating from it—dying you die." - Genesis 2:16

Prior to gaining that knowledge, death wouldn't have been bad. It wouldn't have been anything. It just would've been a part of knowing what life is. Therefore, in gaining the knowledge of morality, dying, as all things are destined to do, we became aware of our dying, while nature is blissfully unaware of it, just as we were prior to gaining the knowledge of being able to measure morality; death is a part of everyday life, millions of things die everyday, and of course millions are brought into life everyday, for approximately 4 billion years here on Earth alone so far. It's us humans, being in possession of both how much more aware we are of ourselves and everything else and our inherency to measure what is good or evil that makes it either a good or bad thing to begin with. I think this is the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" Jesus was referring to; the storm of the final precept of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:24) is death, and the shores is our conscience.

If we gained a knowledge that led us to be kicked out of Eden, then that would mean we need to become ignorant (lack of knowledge) of something to gain it back, so to speak. This is why what guards Eden is an angel with a flaming sword, because if something is aware of its death and subsequently fears it, then it will inherently want to meet the angel with another sword, with violence as a means to overcome it. But if something is absent of itself and isn't worried about what is right or wrong, good or evil for the sake of itself specifically, then this person will just simply walk by the angel without a care in the world; the angel might as well be a bunny with a cucumber in its hand to something thats absent the knowledge of what is good and evil in relation to itself specifically.

"Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." - Matt 10:39

“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matt 18:3

We ate the fruit of that knowledge, so there's no becoming completely unaware of it. We're cursed with its knowledge forever. But one can push past it's instincts (selfishness; "sin") in favor of where knowledge (selflessness; God) takes it to strive to become less aware of oneself and of what is good or evil in relation to itself, which is where all the fear, worry, or need for oneself comes from and therefore, thoughts of suicide, anger, anxiety, hate, narcissism, resentment, deppression, suffering, violence, you name it; for "it's only what a person thinks that can truly defile them." (Tolstoy’s interpretation of Mark 7:15.) At the root of it all is the extent of how much more conscious we are of ourselves in contrast to nature and subsequently how much more we're able to measure what is good or bad for ourselves specifically. God wants us to replace this fear, worry, and need for ourselves (selfishness) with the fear, worry, and need for everything else (selflessness) to reunite ourselves with it and gain this "true life" of a life striving for others as opposed to ourselves that we can't help but be more inherently drawn to. When one holds God to be true to whatever degree, it passively leads our minds to be the least aware of ourselves, and the most selfless, provided of course your knowing of God doesn't point you back to selfish thoughts and behaviors, as most what we now call "religions" do today.

The Serpent is "Instinct"

Additionally, the serpent represents arrogance; hypocrisy—an acting like other people, like everyone else; "playing a part." (Tolstoy) The serpent was renowned to be a symbol of wisdom and cunning at this time; it slithered its way into knowing as much as a human does within Eden, but it was no God, and not being guided by God as Adam and Eve were, it turned evil and selfish in its journey in gaining great knowledge. It's ability to reason darkened by the extent of how much more conscious it was of itself (selfishness; "sin"), while Adam and Eves was illuminated by holding the knowledge of a God as a truth; with great potential for knowledge comes great vulnerability to being blinded by this false sense of self-assurance born out of the love we gain for ourselves along the way. And when God wasn't around, it revealed itself to the humas and its arrogant influence was introduced to them, claiming the opposite of what God claimed, that dying they won't die.

If it wasn't for the serpents arrogant influence, the humans would've done what God warned them not to do without question, not knowing right from wrong at this point, but the idea of becoming more like a God ourselves—that they wouldn't have even considered otherwise if not for the serpents influence—led them onto a different path that again wouldn't have been there otherwise, lack of knowledge being a blindness; the snake represents all the arrogant humans that unknowingly—via this false sense of self-assurance born out of the overwhelming influence of our contemporaries—lead us to build our life on the sand along with them, making the gold of life given to us (or that you've stumbled upon) all about making more life for ourselves all throughout it via the way mankind has made the world ("the dirt of which we came"), making Gods of our sense organs (of "the flesh") so to speak, as opposed to going as far as even building pyramids for the poor or homeless, the starved, or collectively disliked; for everything else (Matt 25:14).

The Consequence of Consciousness; to Know is to Not Know: https://lemmy.world/post/37315263

Disclaimer: This is all subject to change and nothing but my best guesses; my theories so far. That said, what are your genuine thoughts and criticisms of this draft?

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon (Breath of breaths; all is (as temporal as) breath. Achievement of achievements; all is an aspiring to achieve. Doing of doings; all is a doing "under the sun.")

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankind’s acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment that’s led to our present as we know it.)

If vanity ("breath," thus, a temporal desire to aspire to do, or achieve; a striving), born from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things: 

Sense Organs+Present Environment/Consciousness/Imagination/Knowledge/Reason/Truth/Influence/Desire/Morality/Vanity/Spirit ("Spirit:" The will that's fueled by ones faith or, will to believe in a truth, thus, "breath" or vanity that's "done under the sun.")

• Spirit is determined by vanity,
• Vanity is governed by morality,
• Morality is rooted in desire, 
• Desire stems from influence, 
• Influence arises from truth,
• Truth is shaped by reason,
• Reason is born from knowledge,
• Knowledge is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organs reacting to our present environment.

There's a place for Soul here but I haven't decided where exactly; defined more as ones "personality." Some cats have even a phobia for water, others will jump right in; some cats love their belly rubbed, others will claw and bite at you for going anywhere near it.

Sense Organs + Present Environment: It all begins with our sense organs reacting to whatever our present environment consists of. Without our sense organs, we humans (conscious capable beings on a planet) wouldn't be able to be as aware as we sure seem to be to whatever our present environment consists of; no sense organs, no degree of consciousness. However, without an environment for our sense organs to react to, what good would they be? What would be the outcome of a human that was born into and lived in nothing but a small, empty room? Nothing; it wouldn't know squat and wouldn't grow to be anywhere near as conscious as you and I sure seem to be—knowledge being what governs over ones level of consciousness. As we age and gather more knowledge of the experience or simply information for example, the more and more conscious we become; I wouldn't be anywhere near as conscious or aware of the vastness of the universe without gaining that knowledge first, for example. Unfortunately, there's living proof of exactly this—a poor little girl was locked up in a cellar by her father at twenty months old until she was Thirteen: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/14/genie-feral-child-los-angeles-researchers

Consciousness: With sense organs reacting to an environment comes the ability to be conscious or aware of either oneself, or anything else; consciousness can be divided into two—the extent of how much more conscious or aware we are of ourselves, and the extent of how much more conscious we are of everything else. An awareness that gives birth to any degree of selfish awareness or what we call today—"selfishness" and selfless awareness or "selflessness," therefore. Without our ability to be as conscious as we sure seem to be in contrast to any other living thing that's supposedly ever existed, there can't be any knowing of anything. No consciousness, no knowledge; consciousness is what gives life, so to speak, to any degree of knowledge on a planet, and is what keeps it living. Even the knowledge that instinct reveals to both something capable of acknowledging its own instinct, and something not capable of coming anywhere close of being able to do so.

Imagination: Consciousness may be what gives life to any degree of knowledge, but its our imaginations that truly make it possible. With no imagination comes the inability to shape knowledge; knowledge needs to be given the form of something to be given life, so to speak. How would we ever be able to reason that combing two things with another two things makes four things without being able to first give those thoughts shape via our imaginations? Would we even be able to reason at all to begin with? Things like Philosophy simply wouldn't exist. Hell, would any knowing of anything exist?

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

One's imagination and how "big" or detailed it is, is on a spectrum, akin to what we're presently referring to as "Autism Spectrum Disorder." There's what's called "Hyperphantasia," which is the term used to categorize a human with an above average detailed or "big" imagination, "Aphantasia," to categorize those with little to even non-existent detailed imaginations, and of course average imaginations that can be referred to as simply "Phantasia," this being the ancient Greek word for "imagination." The extent of one's inner dialogue or inner thoughts are governed by how detailed ones imagination is, as well as one's ability to empathize—to imagine in our heads the perspectives of other things and subsequently feel the feelings of other things for ourselves; one of our many more profound and unique abilities we humans posses so much more capacity for in contrast to nature.

Knowledge: With our imagination comes knowledge. This one is the most important in my opinion. Our knowledge of anything—morality, time, of the experience, science, history, philosophy, math, and even the influence of the divine to whatever extent that we keep alive or "living" via our unique and profound ability to retain and transfer knowledge in contrast to nature, is a consequence of being as conscious to both ourselves and everything else as we humans sure seem to be. Knowledge is what separates us the most from nature. Yes, we may be mammals, but its our unique and profound ability for knowledge—to retain and transfer it—that allows us to take what our instincts would demand of us otherwise, inherently, and not only deny the more barbaric thoughts and behaviors that are born out of instinct, but even "suffer" to pierce past them, in favor of where a knowledge takes us. There's nothing that comes anywhere close to this unique and profound ability we humans posses; to not only be able to acknowledge our instincts and any more "barbaric" thoughts and subsequent behaviors born out of it, but to even consider, not to mention the great lengths we can push past ourselves in favor of the exact opposite. Instincts (selfishness) demand retaliation, knowledge (selflessness) reveals alternatives that we wouldn't be able to even begin to consider being otherwise absent knowledge. Without knowledge, instincts would completely rule over us as it does lesser conscious, capable beings; knowledge is what makes us free—free from the government of instinct, that is.

The greatest of any knowing is knowing the extent of how little you truly know about anything, or anyone. Of course ignorance (lack of knowledge) would come along with our ability to know anything to begin with; ignorance is neither an insult, nor is it insulting, it's nothing but an adjective. It's a consequence of consciousness; to know is to not know. Lack of knowledge is at the core of instinct, and instinct is what's at the core of selfishness, and selfishness is what's at the core of all the fear, thus, anger, hate, and suffering in the world; all the "evils" mankind has ever known, and will ever know.

Reason: With this unique and profound capacity for knowledge comes our ability to reason with it; to weigh it; quantify (measure) it; to choose it. Reason takes the knowledge we form or shape via our imaginations and rounds it out, so to speak. We may be able to imagine knowledge, but its reason that gives us the ability to take these more simple shapes and make them into triangles and on to decagons; to evolve two plus two is four into rocket science; to take knowledge and turn it into a book, even of our knowledge of morality; to lead one to stop and think when met with someone who offers their other cheek in return after slapping them on the other. It's the very creator of what we now call "logic." With our ability to reason, comes the ability to shape knowledge into a truth.

Truth: To reason is to be able to comprehend what presently reveals itself to be more or less rational and thus, what's subjectively "right" and with that, true. It's by this ability that allows us to take the shapes of knowledge we conjure via our imaginations and ability to reason and turn them into a truth; the truth of wearing clothes for example. It's our ability to reason or "wrestle" with the truth and subsequently live by or deny the outcomes that determines who or what we ultimately become the product of; we are what we've been surrounded with, however, we are also what we repeatedly choose to think, and therefore, do. If I either knowingly or unknowingly decide that becoming a manager of a clothes store is what's presently revealing itself to be the most rational decision, and subsequently live by it, I will ultimately become a product of that doing; of that knowledge.

It's truth to whatever degree (questionable or unquestionable; absolutely or not so absolutely true) that's always guided mankind throughout the ages and into our present as we know it. But what would truth be without the overwhelming influence of other people? To what degree would we believe this or that as true without the influence of our contemporaries? Would we even be able to consider anything as true without all those that have come before us, rounding it out into what we as a species know to be true to whatever degree today? We wouldn't even be able to communicate without all the knowledge of the influence of all those that have come before us, that we take for granted today.

Influence: Would you know all that you know now without the knowledge of the influence of all those that have ever surrounded you? What would you know of even tying your shoes? Truth may be what governs over what or who we ultimately become the product of, but without influence, well, there wouldn't be a whole lot to know would there? If you were the only human on Earth that's ever existed, you'd be absent the knowledge of all that we presently know and have ever presently known, you and I presently at the pinnacle of the "present."

Without influence, Plato wouldn't ever have known all that he knew; he wouldn't have possessed the faculty to express what he knew and he wouldn't ever have gained the knowledge of what Socrates had to share without his influence; Peter or Mary Magdalene would've just kept living their lives without the influence of Jesus. Would we know all that we know now of the relevance and logic of loves ability to overcome hate if it wasn't for people like Jesus or Gandhi going to the great lengths they did to point it out? If someone hadn't pointed out and yelled "watch out!" How would the group of people be aware of what's about to fall on to them and destroy them? How would they be able to save themselves therefore? From their inherency to themselves in Jesus' or Gandhi's case. To become a "sign" (Luke 11:29) or an influence upon their contemporaries for them to even be able to consider love and selflessness over hate and selfishness; to walk the more difficult, less convenient, narrower path that knowledge reveals to us over the more inherent, far easier and more convenient, wider path that instinct demands of us, that we're otherwise more inherently drawn to. Without the influence of your parents for example, would you value what you presently do as much as you would without their influence? Would one simply become a racist along with their families and/or contemporaries as another example? How could one know of the woes of racism and the woes of not questioning or wrestling with the truth as its presented to them via the overwhelming influence of our contemporaries, without knowing of the value of doing so beforehand?

Desire: Without the influence of knowledge to whatever degree, what would we desire? How can one desire ice cream without first gaining the knowledge of the experience of its profound taste? Way back when we weren't aware of sex, to what degree did we desire it? If the influence of our contemporaries didn't consist of sex in any way whatsoever, would we desire it as much as we do today? Obviously, instinct would say the desire would still persist, but to what degree in this context in contrast to our present conditions? Where sex is not only encouraged, but it's even "cool" and culturally "adults" participate in it in droves, so therefore, you being an adult too means that of course you should desire it to the same degrees right? Wrong. We may very well be what we are surrounded with, but we are of course what we repeatedly choose to think and therefore, do.

Desire stems from our sense organs reacting to our environment; without this reaction, what would sex be but simply procreation? Just a side note, if sex didn't feel as good as it does, would anyone be led to "want" to procreate? Or would it fade away as walking to our destinations has in favor of vehicles today for example? It's desire that leads one to act or do for the sake of itself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness), and that potentially leads to a level of passion that has the potential to "undo" or "defile" a humans mind, to even lead one to murder or commit suicide, via the passions that are flamed by both hate and love.

Morality: With desire comes our inherency to measure the good or evil within any doing born out of desire. Morality may be subjective, but just like our knowledge of time for example, via our ability to acknowledge, measure, and organize it, we've always been able to find degrees of objectivity within our knowing of anything, like the laws of physics for example, we've come to find "laws of love" - Tolstoy, or whatever any group of humans have come up with to measure and organize our knowledge of things like time, morality, or the experience as a few examples, at any point throughout mankind’s history. Through our inherency to empathize, (the law and the prophets as a whole that were meant to be fulfilled, in my opinion of course - Matt 5:17, 7:12, 22:40), we're able to make the most accurate measurement to determine what most people would agree to be "good" or "bad," just as we're able to determine what time it presently is for most people. Of course it would still be very circumstantial and dependent on the situation, person, culture, day in age, etc, but generally, using the most accurate tool at our disposal, we can find degrees of objectivity within the sea of subjectivity that is our knowledge of morality.

Any vanity (an aspiring to do) born out of desire—by considering its origins, or what’s at the core of it—can be categorized as a doing for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or for the sake of anything else (selflessness). P.S. subjective morality wouldn't exist if morality was a "spoof" or didn't exist due to its subjectivity; no morality, no subjective morality.

Vanity: With our ability to acknowledge, measure, and give life to any knowledge of morality on an Earth comes the doing of any desire, thus, the vanity of it; if we didn't desire anything, what would we aspire to do? If nothing was good or bad, right (and therefore rational) or wrong, good or evil, then why desire anything? Is it, what we call today, "instinct" that demands we quench our thirst when suffering from the lack of it? Or is it that inherent demand for ourselves born out of consciousness and our knowing of morality coupled with our inherency to measure it in relation to ourselves specifically? A knowing, therefore; an awareness. Just as most nature is conscious enough to share that inherent demand for itself, so we humans just can't help but possess the same. The difference being of how much more conscious we are of ourselves and morality in contrast, hence the extent of how much more angry we become (its very difficult to lead a pet to gain a grudge towards its owner), or sad, to the point of even "crippling" ourselves.

With desire comes the ability to aspire to act; strive; do for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness). Upon this inevitable choice—made knowingly or unknowingly—lays the foundation of human behavior and subsequently the extent we've ever and presently manipulated our environment and organized ourselves up until now as a species, and what will, objectively—God or not, forever govern over the future of the tomorrow of the most conscious, capable species on this planet; the ones with the most potential for either itself, or anything else.

"Know thyself." - The first of three Ancient Greek maxims chosen to be inscribed into the Temple of Apollo where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece

"When you can understand everything [things] you can forgive anything [things]." - Leo Tolstoy

If all vanity or "vapor;" "breath," is a temporal doing "under the sun," is there any vanity or "vapor;" "breath" that man can conjure with the potential to even last forever?: https://lemmy.world/post/38610025

Disclaimer: This is all subject to change and nothing but my best guesses; my theories so far. That said, what are your genuine thoughts and criticisms of this draft?

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon (Breath of breaths; all is (as temporal as) breath. Achievement of achievements; all is an aspiring to achieve. Doing of doings; all is a doing "under the sun.")

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankind’s acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment that’s led to our present as we know it.)

If vanity ("breath," thus, a temporal desire to aspire to do, or achieve; a striving), born from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things: 

Sense Organs+Present Environment/Consciousness/Imagination/Knowledge/Reason/Truth/Influence/Desire/Morality/Vanity/Spirit ("Spirit:" The will that's fueled by ones faith or, will to believe in a truth, thus, "breath" or vanity that's "done under the sun.")

• Spirit is determined by vanity,
• Vanity is governed by morality,
• Morality is rooted in desire, 
• Desire stems from influence, 
• Influence arises from truth,
• Truth is shaped by reason,
• Reason is born from knowledge,
• Knowledge is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organs reacting to our present environment.

There's a place for Soul here but I haven't decided where exactly; defined more as ones "personality." Some cats have even a phobia for water, others will jump right in; some cats love their belly rubbed, others will claw and bite at you for going anywhere near it.

Sense Organs + Present Environment: It all begins with our sense organs reacting to whatever our present environment consists of. Without our sense organs, we humans (conscious capable beings on a planet) wouldn't be able to be as aware as we sure seem to be to whatever our present environment consists of; no sense organs, no degree of consciousness. However, without an environment for our sense organs to react to, what good would they be? What would be the outcome of a human that was born into and lived in nothing but a small, empty room? Nothing; it wouldn't know squat and wouldn't grow to be anywhere near as conscious as you and I sure seem to be—knowledge being what governs over ones level of consciousness. As we age and gather more knowledge of the experience or simply information for example, the more and more conscious we become; I wouldn't be anywhere near as conscious or aware of the vastness of the universe without gaining that knowledge first, for example. Unfortunately, there's living proof of exactly this—a poor little girl was locked up in a cellar by her father at twenty months old until she was Thirteen: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/14/genie-feral-child-los-angeles-researchers

Consciousness: With sense organs reacting to an environment comes the ability to be conscious or aware of either oneself, or anything else; consciousness can be divided into two—the extent of how much more conscious or aware we are of ourselves, and the extent of how much more conscious we are of everything else. An awareness that gives birth to any degree of selfish awareness or what we call today—"selfishness" and selfless awareness or "selflessness," therefore. Without our ability to be as conscious as we sure seem to be in contrast to any other living thing that's supposedly ever existed, there can't be any knowing of anything. No consciousness, no knowledge; consciousness is what gives life, so to speak, to any degree of knowledge on a planet, and is what keeps it living. Even the knowledge that instinct reveals to both something capable of acknowledging its own instinct, and something not capable of coming anywhere close of being able to do so.

Imagination: Consciousness may be what gives life to any degree of knowledge, but its our imaginations that truly make it possible. With no imagination comes the inability to shape knowledge; knowledge needs to be given the form of something to be given life, so to speak. How would we ever be able to reason that combing two things with another two things makes four things without being able to first give those thoughts shape via our imaginations? Would we even be able to reason at all to begin with? Things like Philosophy simply wouldn't exist. Hell, would any knowing of anything exist?

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

One's imagination and how "big" or detailed it is, is on a spectrum, akin to what we're presently referring to as "Autism Spectrum Disorder." There's what's called "Hyperphantasia," which is the term used to categorize a human with an above average detailed or "big" imagination, "Aphantasia," to categorize those with little to even non-existent detailed imaginations, and of course average imaginations that can be referred to as simply "Phantasia," this being the ancient Greek word for "imagination." The extent of one's inner dialogue or inner thoughts are governed by how detailed ones imagination is, as well as one's ability to empathize—to imagine in our heads the perspectives of other things and subsequently feel the feelings of other things for ourselves; one of our many more profound and unique abilities we humans posses so much more capacity for in contrast to nature.

Knowledge: With our imagination comes knowledge. This one is the most important in my opinion. Our knowledge of anything—morality, time, of the experience, science, history, philosophy, math, and even the influence of the divine to whatever extent that we keep alive or "living" via our unique and profound ability to retain and transfer knowledge in contrast to nature, is a consequence of being as conscious to both ourselves and everything else as we humans sure seem to be. Knowledge is what separates us the most from nature. Yes, we may be mammals, but its our unique and profound ability for knowledge—to retain and transfer it—that allows us to take what our instincts would demand of us otherwise, inherently, and not only deny the more barbaric thoughts and behaviors that are born out of instinct, but even "suffer" to pierce past them, in favor of where a knowledge takes us. There's nothing that comes anywhere close to this unique and profound ability we humans posses; to not only be able to acknowledge our instincts and any more "barbaric" thoughts and subsequent behaviors born out of it, but to even consider, not to mention the great lengths we can push past ourselves in favor of the exact opposite. Instincts (selfishness) demand retaliation, knowledge (selflessness) reveals alternatives that we wouldn't be able to even begin to consider being otherwise absent knowledge. Without knowledge, instincts would completely rule over us as it does lesser conscious, capable beings; knowledge is what makes us free—free from the government of instinct, that is.

The greatest of any knowing is knowing the extent of how little you truly know about anything, or anyone. Of course ignorance (lack of knowledge) would come along with our ability to know anything to begin with; ignorance is neither an insult, nor is it insulting, it's nothing but an adjective. It's a consequence of consciousness; to know is to not know. Lack of knowledge is at the core of instinct, and instinct is what's at the core of selfishness, and selfishness is what's at the core of all the fear, thus, anger, hate, and suffering in the world; all the "evils" mankind has ever known, and will ever know.

Reason: With this unique and profound capacity for knowledge comes our ability to reason with it; to weigh it; quantify (measure) it; to choose it. Reason takes the knowledge we form or shape via our imaginations and rounds it out, so to speak. We may be able to imagine knowledge, but its reason that gives us the ability to take these more simple shapes and make them into triangles and on to decagons; to evolve two plus two is four into rocket science; to take knowledge and turn it into a book, even of our knowledge of morality; to lead one to stop and think when met with someone who offers their other cheek in return after slapping them on the other. It's the very creator of what we now call "logic." With our ability to reason, comes the ability to shape knowledge into a truth.

Truth: To reason is to be able to comprehend what presently reveals itself to be more or less rational and thus, what's subjectively "right" and with that, true. It's by this ability that allows us to take the shapes of knowledge we conjure via our imaginations and ability to reason and turn them into a truth; the truth of wearing clothes for example. It's our ability to reason or "wrestle" with the truth and subsequently live by or deny the outcomes that determines who or what we ultimately become the product of; we are what we've been surrounded with, however, we are also what we repeatedly choose to think, and therefore, do. If I either knowingly or unknowingly decide that becoming a manager of a clothes store is what's presently revealing itself to be the most rational decision, and subsequently live by it, I will ultimately become a product of that doing; of that knowledge.

It's truth to whatever degree (questionable or unquestionable; absolutely or not so absolutely true) that's always guided mankind throughout the ages and into our present as we know it. But what would truth be without the overwhelming influence of other people? To what degree would we believe this or that as true without the influence of our contemporaries? Would we even be able to consider anything as true without all those that have come before us, rounding it out into what we as a species know to be true to whatever degree today? We wouldn't even be able to communicate without all the knowledge of the influence of all those that have come before us, that we take for granted today.

Influence: Would you know all that you know now without the knowledge of the influence of all those that have ever surrounded you? What would you know of even tying your shoes? Truth may be what governs over what or who we ultimately become the product of, but without influence, well, there wouldn't be a whole lot to know would there? If you were the only human on Earth that's ever existed, you'd be absent the knowledge of all that we presently know and have ever presently known, you and I presently at the pinnacle of the "present."

Without influence, Plato wouldn't ever have known all that he knew; he wouldn't have possessed the faculty to express what he knew and he wouldn't ever have gained the knowledge of what Socrates had to share without his influence; Peter or Mary Magdalene would've just kept living their lives without the influence of Jesus. Would we know all that we know now of the relevance and logic of loves ability to overcome hate if it wasn't for people like Jesus or Gandhi going to the great lengths they did to point it out? If someone hadn't pointed out and yelled "watch out!" How would the group of people be aware of what's about to fall on to them and destroy them? How would they be able to save themselves therefore? From their inherency to themselves in Jesus' or Gandhi's case. To become a "sign" (Luke 11:29) or an influence upon their contemporaries for them to even be able to consider love and selflessness over hate and selfishness; to walk the more difficult, less convenient, narrower path that knowledge reveals to us over the more inherent, far easier and more convenient, wider path that instinct demands of us, that we're otherwise more inherently drawn to. Without the influence of your parents for example, would you value what you presently do as much as you would without their influence? Would one simply become a racist along with their families and/or contemporaries as another example? How could one know of the woes of racism and the woes of not questioning or wrestling with the truth as its presented to them via the overwhelming influence of our contemporaries, without knowing of the value of doing so beforehand?

Desire: Without the influence of knowledge to whatever degree, what would we desire? How can one desire ice cream without first gaining the knowledge of the experience of its profound taste? Way back when we weren't aware of sex, to what degree did we desire it? If the influence of our contemporaries didn't consist of sex in any way whatsoever, would we desire it as much as we do today? Obviously, instinct would say the desire would still persist, but to what degree in this context in contrast to our present conditions? Where sex is not only encouraged, but it's even "cool" and culturally "adults" participate in it in droves, so therefore, you being an adult too means that of course you should desire it to the same degrees right? Wrong. We may very well be what we are surrounded with, but we are of course what we repeatedly choose to think and therefore, do.

Desire stems from our sense organs reacting to our environment; without this reaction, what would sex be but simply procreation? Just a side note, if sex didn't feel as good as it does, would anyone be led to "want" to procreate? Or would it fade away as walking to our destinations has in favor of vehicles today for example? It's desire that leads one to act or do for the sake of itself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness), and that potentially leads to a level of passion that has the potential to "undo" or "defile" a humans mind, to even lead one to murder or commit suicide, via the passions that are flamed by both hate and love.

Morality: With desire comes our inherency to measure the good or evil within any doing born out of desire. Morality may be subjective, but just like our knowledge of time for example, via our ability to acknowledge, measure, and organize it, we've always been able to find degrees of objectivity within our knowing of anything, like the laws of physics for example, we've come to find "laws of love" - Tolstoy, or whatever any group of humans have come up with to measure and organize our knowledge of things like time, morality, or the experience as a few examples, at any point throughout mankind’s history. Through our inherency to empathize, (the law and the prophets as a whole that were meant to be fulfilled, in my opinion of course - Matt 5:17, 7:12, 22:40), we're able to make the most accurate measurement to determine what most people would agree to be "good" or "bad," just as we're able to determine what time it presently is for most people. Of course it would still be very circumstantial and dependent on the situation, person, culture, day in age, etc, but generally, using the most accurate tool at our disposal, we can find degrees of objectivity within the sea of subjectivity that is our knowledge of morality.

Any vanity (an aspiring to do) born out of desire—by considering its origins, or what’s at the core of it—can be categorized as a doing for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or for the sake of anything else (selflessness). P.S. subjective morality wouldn't exist if morality was a "spoof" or didn't exist due to its subjectivity; no morality, no subjective morality.

Vanity: With our ability to acknowledge, measure, and give life to any knowledge of morality on an Earth comes the doing of any desire, thus, the vanity of it; if we didn't desire anything, what would we aspire to do? If nothing was good or bad, right (and therefore rational) or wrong, good or evil, then why desire anything? Is it, what we call today, "instinct" that demands we quench our thirst when suffering from the lack of it? Or is it that inherent demand for ourselves born out of consciousness and our knowing of morality coupled with our inherency to measure it in relation to ourselves specifically? A knowing, therefore; an awareness. Just as most nature is conscious enough to share that inherent demand for itself, so we humans just can't help but possess the same. The difference being of how much more conscious we are of ourselves and morality in contrast, hence the extent of how much more angry we become (its very difficult to lead a pet to gain a grudge towards its owner), or sad, to the point of even "crippling" ourselves.

With desire comes the ability to aspire to act; strive; do for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness). Upon this inevitable choice—made knowingly or unknowingly—lays the foundation of human behavior and subsequently the extent we've ever and presently manipulated our environment and organized ourselves up until now as a species, and what will, objectively—God or not, forever govern over the future of the tomorrow of the most conscious, capable species on this planet; the ones with the most potential for either itself, or anything else.

"Know thyself." - The first of three Ancient Greek maxims chosen to be inscribed into the Temple of Apollo where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece

"When you can understand everything [things] you can forgive anything [things]." - Leo Tolstoy

If all vanity or "vapor;" "breath," is a temporal doing "under the sun," is there any vanity or "vapor;" "breath" that man can conjure with the potential to even last forever?: https://lemmy.world/post/38610737

Disclaimer: This is all subject to change and nothing but my best guesses; my theories so far. That said, what are your genuine thoughts and criticisms of this draft?

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon (Breath of breaths; all is (as temporal as) breath. Achievement of achievements; all is an aspiring to achieve. Doing of doings; all is a doing "under the sun.")

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi (Selflessness and selfishness are at the basis of things, and our present reality is the consequence of all mankind’s acting upon this great potential for selflessness and selfishness all throughout the millenniums; the extent we've organized ourselves and manipulated our environment that’s led to our present as we know it.)

If vanity ("breath," thus, a temporal desire to aspire to do, or achieve; a striving), born from morality (selflessness and selfishness), is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here's a proposed chain of things: 

Sense Organs+Present Environment/Consciousness/Imagination/Knowledge/Reason/Truth/Influence/Desire/Morality/Vanity/Spirit ("Spirit:" The will that's fueled by ones faith or, will to believe in a truth, thus, "breath" or vanity that's "done under the sun.")

• Spirit is determined by vanity,
• Vanity is governed by morality,
• Morality is rooted in desire, 
• Desire stems from influence, 
• Influence arises from truth,
• Truth is shaped by reason,
• Reason is born from knowledge,
• Knowledge is made possible by our imagination,
• And our imagination depends on the extent of how conscious we are of ourselves and everything else via our sense organs reacting to our present environment.

There's a place for Soul here but I haven't decided where exactly; defined more as ones "personality." Some cats have even a phobia for water, others will jump right in; some cats love their belly rubbed, others will claw and bite at you for going anywhere near it.

Sense Organs + Present Environment: It all begins with our sense organs reacting to whatever our present environment consists of. Without our sense organs, we humans (conscious capable beings on a planet) wouldn't be able to be as aware as we sure seem to be to whatever our present environment consists of; no sense organs, no degree of consciousness. However, without an environment for our sense organs to react to, what good would they be? What would be the outcome of a human that was born into and lived in nothing but a small, empty room? Nothing; it wouldn't know squat and wouldn't grow to be anywhere near as conscious as you and I sure seem to be—knowledge being what governs over ones level of consciousness. As we age and gather more knowledge of the experience or simply information for example, the more and more conscious we become; I wouldn't be anywhere near as conscious or aware of the vastness of the universe without gaining that knowledge first, for example. Unfortunately, there's living proof of exactly this—a poor little girl was locked up in a cellar by her father at twenty months old until she was Thirteen: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/14/genie-feral-child-los-angeles-researchers

Consciousness: With sense organs reacting to an environment comes the ability to be conscious or aware of either oneself, or anything else; consciousness can be divided into two—the extent of how much more conscious or aware we are of ourselves, and the extent of how much more conscious we are of everything else. An awareness that gives birth to any degree of selfish awareness or what we call today—"selfishness" and selfless awareness or "selflessness," therefore. Without our ability to be as conscious as we sure seem to be in contrast to any other living thing that's supposedly ever existed, there can't be any knowing of anything. No consciousness, no knowledge; consciousness is what gives life, so to speak, to any degree of knowledge on a planet, and is what keeps it living. Even the knowledge that instinct reveals to both something capable of acknowledging its own instinct, and something not capable of coming anywhere close of being able to do so.

Imagination: Consciousness may be what gives life to any degree of knowledge, but its our imaginations that truly make it possible. With no imagination comes the inability to shape knowledge; knowledge needs to be given the form of something to be given life, so to speak. How would we ever be able to reason that combing two things with another two things makes four things without being able to first give those thoughts shape via our imaginations? Would we even be able to reason at all to begin with? Things like Philosophy simply wouldn't exist. Hell, would any knowing of anything exist?

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

One's imagination and how "big" or detailed it is, is on a spectrum, akin to what we're presently referring to as "Autism Spectrum Disorder." There's what's called "Hyperphantasia," which is the term used to categorize a human with an above average detailed or "big" imagination, "Aphantasia," to categorize those with little to even non-existent detailed imaginations, and of course average imaginations that can be referred to as simply "Phantasia," this being the ancient Greek word for "imagination." The extent of one's inner dialogue or inner thoughts are governed by how detailed ones imagination is, as well as one's ability to empathize—to imagine in our heads the perspectives of other things and subsequently feel the feelings of other things for ourselves; one of our many more profound and unique abilities we humans posses so much more capacity for in contrast to nature.

Knowledge: With our imagination comes knowledge. This one is the most important in my opinion. Our knowledge of anything—morality, time, of the experience, science, history, philosophy, math, and even the influence of the divine to whatever extent that we keep alive or "living" via our unique and profound ability to retain and transfer knowledge in contrast to nature, is a consequence of being as conscious to both ourselves and everything else as we humans sure seem to be. Knowledge is what separates us the most from nature. Yes, we may be mammals, but its our unique and profound ability for knowledge—to retain and transfer it—that allows us to take what our instincts would demand of us otherwise, inherently, and not only deny the more barbaric thoughts and behaviors that are born out of instinct, but even "suffer" to pierce past them, in favor of where a knowledge takes us. There's nothing that comes anywhere close to this unique and profound ability we humans posses; to not only be able to acknowledge our instincts and any more "barbaric" thoughts and subsequent behaviors born out of it, but to even consider, not to mention the great lengths we can push past ourselves in favor of the exact opposite. Instincts (selfishness) demand retaliation, knowledge (selflessness) reveals alternatives that we wouldn't be able to even begin to consider being otherwise absent knowledge. Without knowledge, instincts would completely rule over us as it does lesser conscious, capable beings; knowledge is what makes us free—free from the government of instinct, that is.

The greatest of any knowing is knowing the extent of how little you truly know about anything, or anyone. Of course ignorance (lack of knowledge) would come along with our ability to know anything to begin with; ignorance is neither an insult, nor is it insulting, it's nothing but an adjective. It's a consequence of consciousness; to know is to not know. Lack of knowledge is at the core of instinct, and instinct is what's at the core of selfishness, and selfishness is what's at the core of all the fear, thus, anger, hate, and suffering in the world; all the "evils" mankind has ever known, and will ever know.

Reason: With this unique and profound capacity for knowledge comes our ability to reason with it; to weigh it; quantify (measure) it; to choose it. Reason takes the knowledge we form or shape via our imaginations and rounds it out, so to speak. We may be able to imagine knowledge, but its reason that gives us the ability to take these more simple shapes and make them into triangles and on to decagons; to evolve two plus two is four into rocket science; to take knowledge and turn it into a book, even of our knowledge of morality; to lead one to stop and think when met with someone who offers their other cheek in return after slapping them on the other. It's the very creator of what we now call "logic." With our ability to reason, comes the ability to shape knowledge into a truth.

Truth: To reason is to be able to comprehend what presently reveals itself to be more or less rational and thus, what's subjectively "right" and with that, true. It's by this ability that allows us to take the shapes of knowledge we conjure via our imaginations and ability to reason and turn them into a truth; the truth of wearing clothes for example. It's our ability to reason or "wrestle" with the truth and subsequently live by or deny the outcomes that determines who or what we ultimately become the product of; we are what we've been surrounded with, however, we are also what we repeatedly choose to think, and therefore, do. If I either knowingly or unknowingly decide that becoming a manager of a clothes store is what's presently revealing itself to be the most rational decision, and subsequently live by it, I will ultimately become a product of that doing; of that knowledge.

It's truth to whatever degree (questionable or unquestionable; absolutely or not so absolutely true) that's always guided mankind throughout the ages and into our present as we know it. But what would truth be without the overwhelming influence of other people? To what degree would we believe this or that as true without the influence of our contemporaries? Would we even be able to consider anything as true without all those that have come before us, rounding it out into what we as a species know to be true to whatever degree today? We wouldn't even be able to communicate without all the knowledge of the influence of all those that have come before us, that we take for granted today.

Influence: Would you know all that you know now without the knowledge of the influence of all those that have ever surrounded you? What would you know of even tying your shoes? Truth may be what governs over what or who we ultimately become the product of, but without influence, well, there wouldn't be a whole lot to know would there? If you were the only human on Earth that's ever existed, you'd be absent the knowledge of all that we presently know and have ever presently known, you and I presently at the pinnacle of the "present."

Without influence, Plato wouldn't ever have known all that he knew; he wouldn't have possessed the faculty to express what he knew and he wouldn't ever have gained the knowledge of what Socrates had to share without his influence; Peter or Mary Magdalene would've just kept living their lives without the influence of Jesus. Would we know all that we know now of the relevance and logic of loves ability to overcome hate if it wasn't for people like Jesus or Gandhi going to the great lengths they did to point it out? If someone hadn't pointed out and yelled "watch out!" How would the group of people be aware of what's about to fall on to them and destroy them? How would they be able to save themselves therefore? From their inherency to themselves in Jesus' or Gandhi's case. To become a "sign" (Luke 11:29) or an influence upon their contemporaries for them to even be able to consider love and selflessness over hate and selfishness; to walk the more difficult, less convenient, narrower path that knowledge reveals to us over the more inherent, far easier and more convenient, wider path that instinct demands of us, that we're otherwise more inherently drawn to. Without the influence of your parents for example, would you value what you presently do as much as you would without their influence? Would one simply become a racist along with their families and/or contemporaries as another example? How could one know of the woes of racism and the woes of not questioning or wrestling with the truth as its presented to them via the overwhelming influence of our contemporaries, without knowing of the value of doing so beforehand?

Desire: Without the influence of knowledge to whatever degree, what would we desire? How can one desire ice cream without first gaining the knowledge of the experience of its profound taste? Way back when we weren't aware of sex, to what degree did we desire it? If the influence of our contemporaries didn't consist of sex in any way whatsoever, would we desire it as much as we do today? Obviously, instinct would say the desire would still persist, but to what degree in this context in contrast to our present conditions? Where sex is not only encouraged, but it's even "cool" and culturally "adults" participate in it in droves, so therefore, you being an adult too means that of course you should desire it to the same degrees right? Wrong. We may very well be what we are surrounded with, but we are of course what we repeatedly choose to think and therefore, do.

Desire stems from our sense organs reacting to our environment; without this reaction, what would sex be but simply procreation? Just a side note, if sex didn't feel as good as it does, would anyone be led to "want" to procreate? Or would it fade away as walking to our destinations has in favor of vehicles today for example? It's desire that leads one to act or do for the sake of itself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness), and that potentially leads to a level of passion that has the potential to "undo" or "defile" a humans mind, to even lead one to murder or commit suicide, via the passions that are flamed by both hate and love.

Morality: With desire comes our inherency to measure the good or evil within any doing born out of desire. Morality may be subjective, but just like our knowledge of time for example, via our ability to acknowledge, measure, and organize it, we've always been able to find degrees of objectivity within our knowing of anything, like the laws of physics for example, we've come to find "laws of love" - Tolstoy, or whatever any group of humans have come up with to measure and organize our knowledge of things like time, morality, or the experience as a few examples, at any point throughout mankind’s history. Through our inherency to empathize, (the law and the prophets as a whole that were meant to be fulfilled, in my opinion of course - Matt 5:17, 7:12, 22:40), we're able to make the most accurate measurement to determine what most people would agree to be "good" or "bad," just as we're able to determine what time it presently is for most people. Of course it would still be very circumstantial and dependent on the situation, person, culture, day in age, etc, but generally, using the most accurate tool at our disposal, we can find degrees of objectivity within the sea of subjectivity that is our knowledge of morality.

Any vanity (an aspiring to do) born out of desire—by considering its origins, or what’s at the core of it—can be categorized as a doing for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or for the sake of anything else (selflessness). P.S. subjective morality wouldn't exist if morality was a "spoof" or didn't exist due to its subjectivity; no morality, no subjective morality.

Vanity: With our ability to acknowledge, measure, and give life to any knowledge of morality on an Earth comes the doing of any desire, thus, the vanity of it; if we didn't desire anything, what would we aspire to do? If nothing was good or bad, right (and therefore rational) or wrong, good or evil, then why desire anything? Is it, what we call today, "instinct" that demands we quench our thirst when suffering from the lack of it? Or is it that inherent demand for ourselves born out of consciousness and our knowing of morality coupled with our inherency to measure it in relation to ourselves specifically? A knowing, therefore; an awareness. Just as most nature is conscious enough to share that inherent demand for itself, so we humans just can't help but possess the same. The difference being of how much more conscious we are of ourselves and morality in contrast, hence the extent of how much more angry we become (its very difficult to lead a pet to gain a grudge towards its owner), or sad, to the point of even "crippling" ourselves.

With desire comes the ability to aspire to act; strive; do for the sake of oneself (selfishness), or anything else (selflessness). Upon this inevitable choice—made knowingly or unknowingly—lays the foundation of human behavior and subsequently the extent we've ever and presently manipulated our environment and organized ourselves up until now as a species, and what will, objectively—God or not, forever govern over the future of the tomorrow of the most conscious, capable species on this planet; the ones with the most potential for either itself, or anything else.

"Know thyself." - The first of three Ancient Greek maxims chosen to be inscribed into the Temple of Apollo where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece

"When you can understand everything [things] you can forgive anything [things]." - Leo Tolstoy

If all vanity or "vapor;" "breath," is a temporal doing "under the sun," is there any vanity or "vapor;" "breath" that man can conjure with the potential to even last forever?: https://lemmy.world/post/38610025

Son(s)/daughter(s): Product(s); products of the resurrection (Luke 20:36), products of this age (Luke 20:34), products of Jerusalem (Luke 23:28), products of your Father who is in Heaven (Matt 5:45), products of God (Matt 5:9)—product of the living God (Matt 16:16). Whatever we're presently believing to be most right and rational, thus, true, is what determines what or who we ultimately become a product of and where we build our house (our life): Out on the sand, where the tide, moth, rust, and worm ultimately destroy, or on the rock, with people like Jesus and what the Ten Warnings (don't do things like steal, murder, and make sure to honor your parents or you'll only—ultimately—regret it like crazy when met with the sobering influence of our own death) were made of, a material with the ability to last far longer, potentially even eternally (Matt 7:24).

“You are of your father the devil [instinct]." - John 8:44

"The Living God": Our unique and profound ability to retain and transfer knowledge in contrast to nature. Without humans on an Earth, there's nothing to give life to any degree of knowledge and to keep it living, even eternally (or as long as man is capable and willing to do so), including the knowledge of a God; the salt is our unique and profound ability for selflessness in contrast to nature and knowledge is the light (Matt 5:13, 14).

"Eternal Life": When we die, our names are resurrected via this unique and profound ability, potentially becoming a "sign" (Luke 11:29) to people by becoming "equal to angels and are sons [products] of God" (Luke 20:36), gaining new life after death, inspiring present and future humans to live not by the path that instinct reveals to us (as the Ninevites would've if not for Jonah's influence)—that we would be more inherently drawn to being absent this knowledge, thus, influence; it being the wider, easier path (Matt 7:13)—but the more narrow path knowledge reveals to us, that instinct would lead us in the opposite direction of and to not even be able to begin to consider otherwise—lack of knowledge being a blindness; you can't see what you can't understand, and you can't understand what you don't know, and you can't know anything until you know.

"And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” - Jonah 4:11

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." - Luke 23:34

Genesis Chapter Five: https://biblehub.com/lsv/genesis/5.htm

"1 This [is] an account of the generations of Adam. In the day of God’s creating man, in the likeness of God He has made him; 2 a male and a female He has created them, and He blesses them, and calls their name Man, in the day of their being created. 3 And Adam lives one hundred and thirty years [[or two hundred and thirty years]], and begets [a son] in his likeness, according to his image, and calls his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his begetting Seth are eight hundred years [[or seven hundred years]], and he begets sons and daughters. 5 And all the days of Adam which he lived are nine hundred and thirty years, and he dies."

"The Son of Man": Adam didn't literally live 930 years. He literally lived for 130 years, and his name was resurrected after death, leading to his life after death for 830 years, giving birth to not literal sons and daughters, but in the same sense that you and I are a son or daughter of Jesus and his "sign" or influence (becoming products of the resurrection) the same way the people of that time were inspired by Adam and Seth's influence, and so on. Just as the Ninevites became sons or daughters of Jonah. Making people like Adam, Seth, Enos, etc, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Gandhi, heck, even Abraham Lincoln, Sons of Man. When we follow through with this way and this life (this way of living), defined by the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount - Matt 5-7, as well as break free of the shackles of living in the effects of those that have become before us, and unto living a life of being the cause of the effects—of what the world is yet to become, we begin to walk the path of this "true life," potentially becoming a Son of Man ourselves, provided of course we're—at the very least—able to follow through with the true cost of discipleship: To hate your life in this world and renounce all that you have (Luke 14:25, 33).

"Those who love their life, lose it. Those who hate their life in this world, keep it for eternal life." - John 12:25

Son(s)/daughter(s): Product(s); products of the resurrection (Luke 20:36), products of this age (Luke 20:34), products of Jerusalem (Luke 23:28), products of your Father who is in Heaven (Matt 5:45), products of God (Matt 5:9)—product of the living God (Matt 16:16). Whatever we're presently believing to be most right and rational, thus, true, is what determines what or who we ultimately become a product of and where we build our house (our life): Out on the sand, where the tide, moth, rust, and worm ultimately destroy, or on the rock, with people like Jesus and what the Ten Warnings (don't do things like steal, murder, and make sure to honor your parents or you'll only—ultimately—regret it like crazy when met with the sobering influence of our own death) were made of, a material with the ability to last far longer, potentially even eternally (Matt 7:24).

“You are of your father the devil [instinct]." - John 8:44

"The Living God": Our unique and profound ability to retain and transfer knowledge in contrast to nature. Without humans on an Earth, there's nothing to give life to any degree of knowledge and to keep it living, even eternally (or as long as man is capable and willing to do so), including the knowledge of a God; the salt is our unique and profound ability for selflessness in contrast to nature and knowledge is the light (Matt 5:13, 14).

"Eternal Life": When we die, our names are resurrected via this unique and profound ability, potentially becoming a "sign" (Luke 11:29) to people by becoming "equal to angels and are sons [products] of God" (Luke 20:36), gaining new life after death, inspiring present and future humans to live not by the path that instinct reveals to us (as the Ninevites would've if not for Jonah's influence)—that we would be more inherently drawn to being absent this knowledge, thus, influence; it being the wider, easier path (Matt 7:13)—but the more narrow path knowledge reveals to us, that instinct would lead us in the opposite direction of and to not even be able to begin to consider otherwise—lack of knowledge being a blindness; you can't see what you can't understand, and you can't understand what you don't know, and you can't know anything until you know.

"And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” - Jonah 4:11

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." - Luke 23:34

Genesis Chapter Five: https://biblehub.com/lsv/genesis/5.htm

"1 This [is] an account of the generations of Adam. In the day of God’s creating man, in the likeness of God He has made him; 2 a male and a female He has created them, and He blesses them, and calls their name Man, in the day of their being created. 3 And Adam lives one hundred and thirty years [[or two hundred and thirty years]], and begets [a son] in his likeness, according to his image, and calls his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his begetting Seth are eight hundred years [[or seven hundred years]], and he begets sons and daughters. 5 And all the days of Adam which he lived are nine hundred and thirty years, and he dies."

"The Son of Man": Adam didn't literally live 930 years. He literally lived for 130 years, and his name was resurrected after death, leading to his life after death for 830 years, giving birth to not literal sons and daughters, but in the same sense that you and I are a son or daughter of Jesus and his "sign" or influence (becoming products of the resurrection) the same way the people of that time were inspired by Adam and Seth's influence, and so on. Just as the Ninevites became sons or daughters of Jonah. Making people like Adam, Seth, Enos, etc, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Gandhi, heck, even Abraham Lincoln, Sons of Man. When we follow through with this way and this life (this way of living), defined by the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount - Matt 5-7, as well as break free of the shackles of living in the effects of those that have become before us, and unto living a life of being the cause of the effects—of what the world is yet to become, we begin to walk the path of this "true life," potentially becoming a Son of Man ourselves, provided of course we're—at the very least—able to follow through with the true cost of discipleship: To hate your life in this world and renounce all that you have (Luke 14:25, 33).

"Those who love their life, lose it. Those who hate their life in this world, keep it for eternal life." - John 12:25