[Unfinished] Compilation Effect II

Unfinished
------------------------------------------

[11 February 2010]
Thursday, Monday>>Dark:30
Subject: Fleet of Bottles
CC: D.E. Machina (demachina777@mail.com), ...


>>>Available Tidbits<<<

>>1	>>2
>>3	>>4
>>5	>>6

Data Record XV
Fools. We came for fortune and knowledge, but we received disaster and fell prey to the ignorance that avarice affords the young and stupid. Now we find ourselves marooned, and all hands are at the ready to do the work we've come to do. I know not whether our fear is more of the Cap'n or what lurks within the jungle's dark heart. Either way we blister and bleed to escape something. Father, hear our cry for help.

-D.E. Machina
Back






POSTED
Henceforth all bilgetalk and gossiping concerning the plight current state is forbidden. Reg'lar work hours are expected. Any man caught arousing fear or concern amidst the crew will be given over to Admiral Matter and his nine-tails.
Back






Ship Fiddler's Notes
Motivate through the toil, draw attention away from state. Cap'n's orders to give temp. pleasure till escape possible, till then keep mind off. Feel notes through, need lyrics esp. Anyway out fine, hands dry and cracking from work.

Song Ideas:
Sweatin' blood, breathin' rum, blistered thoughts, speech gone numb, hopeless hands, battered backs, sleepless tents, fearful axe. Cut and chop and clip and cleave, to find what it is the gods did leave. Perhaps a song a map a word or track, to save our souls and bring us back, to no more feed our shovels loam, return to a dream that we call home.	Lovely lady, seductive siren, our love is in the stars like Chiron. Sing me nocturne till dreams take me away, till my fears your sweet hymn will allay. Your wish is my word, my work, my way. Your happiness my humble, hallowed hope. So work you men! Work till dusk! Work like only tooth, claw, or tusk- can drag you away from this your goal, for when it ends you can return your soul, to your well beloved lady of the dawn, to tell of the strife you have undergone, but to see her starlit eyes once more, to tell her you leave it to other men to explore.	Give it to the whip, give it to the sun, give it to the captain, let no man turn and run. Give it to your mate, give it to the sea, give it to your neighbor, let no man deny this decree. Give it to the jungle, give it to the night, give it to the gods, let no man damn the light.

Cap'n's Log; Entry XIII
My men have toiled for days now after some shadow of hope. They know not for what we seek, and I fear to tell them lest they realize they're hope be in nothing rather than something. I've instructed the fiddler to play by day rather than be another hand at the shovel. A spruce of melody by day and nocturne by night will keep their hope in place until we can find some sign of direction.
Back







Data Record XIX
The search continues. To the unobservant it would seem sunlight causes cheer to our men, and moonlight - hysteria. Something deep within the jungle recesses beats by dimlit starlight. Only the moonlight and the wild creatures have gazed upon whatever this thing is. As for us mortals, we sit in tents mumbling prayers from fear. We came upon a wrapped up book today which the Cap'n insisted on taking to his own quarters regardless of my claim to it as the camp scholar.





Cap'n's Log; Entry XIV

Foundation

What is the foundation of my belief in God.
Is it reason or faith?
If I am to say it is faith, then I must ask myself by what faculty I come to acknowledge such things.
For I must understand what it is I mean in saying "I believe in God."
But this leads me to some faith in my ability to make coherent statements with consistent words.
Naturally consistency is in the realm of reason though.
Ad infinitum.

I begin with some definitions.
It would seem there are varying degrees of reason.
In one manner I might say it is deductive reasoning, in another something practical, further still the ability to simply identify a thing.
Now this last is the thing of which I speak when I say reason as a foundation,
for I must identify a thing before I might speak of it.
But in merely answering these questions I've stated I must begin with definitions.
Of course these definitions might have this type of faith in my words meaning something.
And even my beginning falls into the trap which prefaced the definitions.
It would seem in order to even ask the question I must first answer it.

And in what way does an answer preface a question?
I know of none, and if something exists which I might call an answer to a question, then I've contradicted what I mean when I say answer and question,
for surely I say an answer by definition follows from a question.
E.G. I might say, "Brown." With the absence of the question the word "brown" loses status as an answer though, and merely becomes a word, for it shows me nothing about some point of confusion which I wished to clear up.

Of course one might get caught up in the words literally "question" and "answer" --
a fool's errand,
for I might have called them "Neutryssil" and "Slenderose," respectively, but the word is defined so that the understanding in my mind is conveyed, not that the sounds rolling off my tongue have intrinsic meaning.
So that when I say "question or Neutryssil" you understand I mean something which I know not about a thing but desire otherwise, and "answer or Slenderose" to mean that thing which will bring knowing which I desire about the thing I know not.
Of course the fool might even question meaning of the words contained within the definitions,
but then they posit an ad infinitum need for definitions,
and this of course makes their pointing out "problems" to be self-refuting,
for the one who rejects language, ought not to use it,
otherwise they have no refutation, for they themselves make no sense,
according to their own conclusion.

So it would seem language is foundational.
This reasoning at an identification level is foundational.
And that faith is foundational.
Surely they cannot all be foundational,
for I am but one man,
and while I have parts,
they must come together on a single foundation.

For language, it is a conclusion drawn from lower reasoning,
so I might come now back to faith or reason.
Yet the question remains:
I believe in God - faith
What's God? - reason
God is... - reason
Ah...
And of this first thing...what proof have we?
Thus we arrive at the colloquial definition:
to believe without evidence.

Some first belief from which all else flows.
All have it.
Though some prefer other terms, so as not to appear...
better...objective...[chuckle]
axiom, assumption, faith, whoops...
even the strictest empiricist must admit,
the assumption that everything that is, can be proven empirically,
is itself not empirical, and thus cannot be proven empirically,
lest they become circular in their reasoning.
As this is absurd, the reasonable will admit the belief isn't empirical.
So call this first belief what you will,
but know the meaning conveyed via mind is the same.
And the systems of beliefs we build, all are only as strong,
or obtain such characteristics, as the foundation allows.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen.
But what is the meaning of this word "evidence,"
given the text it is either evidence of the unseen,
or evidence of things hoped for.
Clearly not the former,
for evidence and unseen are contradictory.
[Edit: Evidence as seen by an empiricist]
For "hoped for" references possibility,
and not necessarily actuality.

Strange thing to say.
For we do say God's existence is necessary.
We say contradictions are as such,
because they admit to no possibility,
that is, they're impossible.
And whatever is impossible,
is so because it is contradictory.
We define God as that with no limits,
so there would exist nothing with limits,
which might limit it.
Thus God is a possibility,
even in all worlds.
Doesn't say He exists though.
Of course we can hold the assumption,
He is merely a possibility and not in actuality,
but as that with no limits,
it would be a limitation to be in possibility and not actualiy,
thus He must necessarily exist,
in any world you want to posit.
Lest of course you wish to say,
that with no limits has limits.
Heh heh heh...

But this first definition of God,
perhaps is the faith,
this substance of things hoped for.
While the educated man can entertain ideas without accepting,
many will not.
Such a behavior does not constitute irrationality,
rather accepting definitions and assumptions,
and the not accepting comes down to showing--
they lead to contradiction.
So long as they are consistent,
nothing irrational can be said about them,
and we say the person's beliefs are...
rational, consistent, understandable, legitimate.
But this fight against faith,
and calling one's own axioms or assumptions,
a fool's errand.
Merely children throwing feces at one another and screaming.

And now I seem to insist on some reasonable statement about which I have faith,
then that the statement's formulation is of some lower form of reasoning, identification.
And this of course is the state of the mind, of which words allow expression.
There is some first willing of some belief.
I begin with "GOD,"
then follow it with "is."
As hard as I may,
my reason seems to preface my faith,
at all turns.

Yet something still lurks,
swimming along the surface,
like hot embers on my tongue,
burns to be released.
These ideas try to form argument,
but I order them wrongly.
The pieces are here,
and I see the conclusion is close.
If I had but a moment more,
I would be ready to begin--
having thought long,
would complete it with diligence,
and quickness of action.

Something about the will.
This is going to drive me mad.

Of course it seems quite silly to say,
the foundation of my faith is faith,
lest I too go into an infinite regress,
leaving me with reason.
But something about this seems inconsistent
with Scripture.
Stranger and stranger still.
But I didn't say faith in the beginning,
I made sure to say "belief in,"
the good ole craedo en.

So is it that I reason first or have faith in some fact?
I might define God,
and come to faith via argument,
but that's not how I came to mine.
It simply was,
as long as I remember.
I might say I simply came to the idea,
I might say my parents put it into my head,
either way it is some initial definition,
from which I build up a way of life.
It isn't until I come to an age of reason,
that I might see if it is consistent.
This writing as proof,
it survived my trial by fire.
Now I can accept it on a new level,
and submit myself to its trials.

Anyway, yes,
something about the will,
of which I haven't quite worked out.

End post; 12:58
Daylong Meditations
In His Name,
BT

I can

[italics = 1/2 normal speed; normal = double time]


I can argue my way out of my mind,
out of my mind,
out of my mind.

I can color inside the lines.
I can decrypt archaic signs.
I can prove you right or wrong,
I can write lyrics to this song.
I can hear the ocean in a shell,
But I can't look you in the eyes and say farewell.

I can smile while analyzing you,
analyzing you,
analyzing you.

I can convince myself I'm not in love.
I can break in a baseball glove.
I can pray when I can't find God,
I can put on a cheerful facade.
I can beat any video game,
But I can't pretend others are the same.

I can tell myself to have a dream,
have a dream,
have a dream.

I can engineer a creature trap.
I can craft a wishing cap.
I can cook a delicious meal.
I can think before I feel.
I can navigate through the woods at night,
But I can't seem to win this fight.

I can stay up all night until the dawn,
until the dawn,
until the dawn.

I can write poetry fueled by tears.
I can give you a reason to persevere.
I can make a magnetic coil
I can sell vials of serpent oil.
I can ride a dirt bike down a trail.
But I can't find the ending to this tale.

Música Para Mi Alma

The word is all around me,
I taste it on my tongue.
It flows like the great sea,
from souls I hear it sung.

Tell me what you'd have me do,
I'll tend to your beautiful rose.
My mind wanders for you,
I never know to where it goes.

It saturates the world about me,
how it bothers me so.
I having nothing left with to plea,
so why don't you say "Hello?"

I hear it in the wind,
I long to feel it in my wings.
If my heart you would mend,
I'd reclaim my angels and dust and rings.

I'm beaten, broken, and sore,
my spirit has forgotten how to fly.
I've asked you time and time before,
but I'm left high and dry.

I'm tired of contradiction,
the Spirit speaks of truth.
What shall I do with this prediction?
Other than say it's emotion's sleuth.

My soul hears it in this music,
but only in my dream's show.
As I'm drifting off to sleep,
how it charms me so.

I hear the Saints now praying,
please bring mine to His throne.
Help stop me from straying,
I'm tired of saying "If I had only known."

Now you say I need to chase,
before you said he'd meet me here.
Enough push and pull with grace.
And you wonder like I look austere.

I hear it on the ocean;
I feel it in the waves.
I know its all around me,
and see how it saves.

I get a 'word' to give up my ways,
another to see them through.
I can't give this prophecy praise,
when I see both can't be true.

Can't ignore your falsehood,
that gift isn't within.
I know you meant good,
so no need for chagrin.

I hear You whisper to me,
as I strain to hear.
And if You tell me what to do,
to that alone I shall adhere.

Incoherence

I'd like to slip into your thoughts,
like a lucid dream I'd walk around,
looking for what Beauty lies there.
I have glimpsed it in some of you,
and my dives have left curiosity in its wake.

But I cannot stroll around your minds.
It must suffice for you to paint me a portrait.
Of meadows, mermaids, or mercury--
whatever helps me to understand.
But our method must be careful,
I cannot take all of the whispers,
raising to yelps of joy and fear.
It sounds like jibberish, chatter,
great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I imagine Hell as a place of incoherence.
A room piled with bodies,
some lying some leaping, none really care which,
of those who wished no part of God in life,
and receives such in the one after.
It is full of depravity, vice, sickness,
and most notably--
incoherence.
They know not of their neighbor's existence,
each crying out, shouting, laughing.
Sheer insanity, their words and gestures,
habits from a world nearly forgotten.
Motion without meaning-- like hellish automatons.
Their state of being is incomprehensible,
due to their incoherent behaviors.

So, when we all stand together,
yet each speaks independently,
raising volumes become yells,
cries, and I know not,
if some are weeping or rejoicing,
I think I've fallen into that dark chasm.
Every moment elongated, madness sets in,
as if a wind of blackness has swooped in,
to put out the wisp of my candle's light.
I can't focus on any one person,
I no longer know their intent,
I cannot discern what they are doing,
all I can sense is a growing noise.
Incoherence.

So I flee.
Forsake me not,
nor think me ill-willed toward you,
for I know your ends are well-meant.
But I cannot stand isolation in a full room,
I feel more separated from God then,
then any other time.
I begin to imagine ludicrous things,
either I have been forsaken,
or that we believe in two different gods.
I leave to find Him again,
to silence the movement to chaos.
For I believe God promotes a sense of Harmony,
and that which moves to otherwise,
is thought Beautiful by the incoherent.

And for those that are offended by my departure,
but ask not for my reason,
what am I to do?
When I tell you we can talk about it,
but you walk away,
what shall I do?
For you have forsaken me,
judged me,
and not sought to understand first,
but rather to condemn.
I cannot be "together" in a room of individuals,
for none of their words might edify the church,
since you all speak to God,
but do so alone,
and not with your brothers and sisters.
There is time to be alone,
and time for community,
and we mustn't mix inconsistent qualities,
lest we become,
incoherent.

Soothesayers

To defy, demean your own declared call,
deny foundation in circles you run, to play children's game.
Passionate storm of speakers, the squall of thralls,
Too zealous, jealous, to shout and bout, instigate the flame.

To act, attack, to smile and walk a mile across unknown landscape.
Call it the fire, divine desire, but it still looks like imagination to me.
Poor allusion, delusion conclusion, a soul with malformed shape.
Obscure word, definition absurd, equivocation won't let me be.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, flock seeks exception to be its rock.
Lies and falsehoods painted in hope, nightshade and smokescreen.
Creatures of habit, seeking the Abbot,
but to their lives' ends they make Him their means.

Another Love Dialogue [scattered addenda]

Acario: Eros, eros, eros, how you annoy me so.

Alyssa: You've gone over this a hundred times, but still a hundred more is required until it sinks into your thick skull.

Acario: So be it. Where shall we begin?

Alyssa: With a definition of course. Eros is that love which desires something that the individual is lacking.

Acario: Fine and dandy. So let's spell it out and all its implications.

Alyssa: If you obtained what it is you lacked the eros would cease to be.

Acario: So if I like a woman and I get her then I cease to like her?

Alyssa: That depends on what it is you like about the woman.

Acario: Well I tend to be attracted to a beautiful face first. That gives the inspiration to look into the soul for something better.

Alyssa: If looking at a beautiful face is only useful insofar as it motivates you to look to the soul, then what is it you really are looking for?

Acario: Beauty of the soul.

Alyssa: And what of this Beauty? What is it?

Acario: It is Divine. The particular participates in it, but is not it.

Alyssa: And if something participates in a thing but is not that thing, then what is it that you truly desire?

Acario: Whatever that thing is which the particular participates in. The Divine. God.

Alyssa: And what of the common view of Beauty? Is it true it is in the eye of the beholder? What if I was to say that person is beautiful and you said they are not -- what would we conclude?

Acario: Well, let's start off by assuming it is in the eye of the beholder.

Alyssa: Good, good...

Acario: Now I suppose people can mean this in two different ways, both being a form of relativism. The first is that the person is beautiful because you say she is. But she's also not beautiful because I say so. This would obviously be a contradiction, so we musn't say that reality is dictated by our perceptions since it is contradictory to the object we both perceive to suggest such a hypothesis. The second is that the person is beautiful to you according to your perception within your own mind, and in mine she is not. Something seems wrong with this too.

Alyssa: And what do we do with this second option then? Seemingly wrong isn't enough to disregard it as a logical possibility.

Acario: Well as an implication it would seem that we couldn't talk about a particular being beautiful.

Alyssa: And why do you say this? Can the particular not be beautiful to me and not to you in our respective minds?

Acario: From a common sense perspective I think most would want to say yes. Yet, wait...let's assume that is the case. We clearly have two different definitions of beautiful and fall victim to equivocation when talking. The problem is that we think we're understanding one another when we say beautiful but we're clearly not. So it would seem to say beauty is in the eye of the beholder in this second sense becomes a nonsense comment because we both understand it differently.

Alyssa: Not bad, but you still seem to have missed something.

Acario: Oh?

Alyssa: So what if there is equivocation. Say I decide that my definitions build my world, including you and your opinions of Beauty.

Acario: Well then I would be determining the person as being both beautiful and not beautiful once again. The only way to get out of this contradiction is to change the place, that is the beauty is not in the particular but in the observers' minds. So it cannot be that you determined such things through some sort of solipsist turn because then you have assigned beautiful by what you perceive of as yourself and not beautiful as what you perceive to be me (as a solipsist) to the particular, both falling inside the same thing within the same time.

Alyssa: What if I think this world is an illusion created by my perception and you have your own version?

Acario: We're finding very silly ways to say the same things now aren't we?

Alyssa: Not quite. In the first problem we posed the problem of solipsism on such truth claims about a particular, now we pose the problem of the relativist.

Acario: Ahh, I suppose I shouldn't have labeled both as relativist ways of looking at it then. Well, fair enough. Given this hypothesis then when you look at the person and say "beautiful" I'm simply going to say "what person?"

Alyssa: And why is this?

Acario: Because we live in different worlds. If our worlds are built up by perceptions alone then we cannot perceive the same object, for that would suppose some thing exists independent of our perceptions which is constant and which our perceptions do not form but merely observe.

Alyssa: Not bad. Warming up are we? Shaking off some of the rust?

Acario: Trying to, it's very difficult.

Alyssa: No matter, it's not bad for now. Now, shall we reroute back to the main topic?

Acario: Yes please.

Alyssa: So you say you see this Beauty in a person and you want it.

Acario: Painfully so.

Alyssa: And it is Divine, something of Theos?

Acario: Yes.

Alyssa: And how do you claim to know such things?

Acario: A desire is always of something and not nothing. It necessitates an object by its very definition., for it is "something" that we lack. And through interaction with the person I first see Beauty in body. It is but a mere shadow though. It motivates me to want to see the soul of the person.

Alyssa: And how do you think you see Beauty in a particular's soul?

Acario: I don't know. There's something indescribable there.

Alyssa: Come come now. I thought we were here to philosophize, not give excuses when ignorance finds us.

Acario: I see something in the eyes, in the actions, the words, behavior -- I watch and listen in ways that I never tell the person. I analyze them but I'm not sure what it is.

Alyssa: Is the self one or many?

Acario: Both.

Alyssa: Explain.

Acario: We can both desire and not desire a thing simultaneously. This would be a contradiction given it occurred in the same thing at the same time. Yet it occurs.

Alyssa: And what solution do you propose for this problem?

Acario: Separation of parts: intellect, emotion, appetites, and the will.

Alyssa: Good. And what do we do with these parts?

Acario: We must find a way to order them.

Alyssa: And what does proper ordering approach?

Acario: The Divine.

Alyssa: And why not something else?

Acario: All things are insofar as they are of Him. All their being is gotten from Him. There is nothing else to approach. Harmony is God-like, any action towards something otherwise is chaotic, which seeks to destroy order and eventually structure. If a thing were capable of approaching this something else it would find there is nothing to approach and if it achieved goals of improper ordering and even destruction of structure, it would cease to be. If some other standard exists which was greater than this thing would be God, and if I supposed that I or something else was a better standard than I'm simply supposing that something greater can come from something lesser.

Alyssa: And what of the theory of natural selection and evolution? Does it not provide ample evidence for simple units creating complexity?

Acario: The biologists' definition of complexity simply means that basic units have combined with others in an order so as to produce new units. It is complex insofar as it has formed a new connection, e.g. amino acids becoming proteins, and thus is substantially greater but to say that it provides ample evidence for the formation of the word is ludicrous. It provides an alternate to the teleological argument for God's existence but this is by far the weakest argument the theologists has in his arsenal. It still is ineffective to describe first causes and principles, i.e. why basic units form together to begin with (why does there exist a nature that seeks to do so) and if they are contingent why they exist at all.

Alyssa: Substantially greater creations, how that sings to my soul. God's creation continually coming into being, ever closer to completion. But what of the human being and evolution?

Acario: Well, even the educated biologist will say that it is not greater in a true sense, merely more advantageous given the creatures circumstances.

Alyssa: So we are trying to approach God. Evolution clearly doesn't answer the question on how to go about this, though it does provide answers about God's creation in substance. What of form though?

Acario: These are the conceptual parts we saw must exist, to assume otherwise led to contradiction.

Alyssa: So, I'll ask again. What is it that you desire when you have eros for a woman?

Acario: God.

Alyssa: Good. Now, how should you act when in this sort of love?

Acario: I should cultivate the individual towards this Beauty.

Alyssa: Why do you speak as if you have a moral obligation?

Acario: Because I do. Christ's second commandment.

Alyssa: This commandment speaks of agape, not eros.

Acario: Oh. What is the difference?

Alyssa: Agape is selfless, unconditional, divine love.

Acario: So is it agape I really desire?

Alyssa: You tell me.

Acario: I think so. It is said God is Agape. If it's God I desire then it must also be Agape I desire.

Alyssa: Yes it must be, but do you fathom what it is you're suggesting?

Acario: I don't think I understand it though I say it.

Alyssa: Do you want something out of a person you have eros for?

Acario: Of course, you want the person to be your own and that they want you as their own.

Alyssa: Right. But as it is eros you shall never be satisfied in whole. You will continually love the other and they you until you might have what it is you both have truly sought, the Lord.

Acario: I don't see where this is going.

Alyssa: Hush now and listen then. It is not truly selfless love since you both want something for each other. Even though you both want the best for the other, your own desire also remains. This doesn't mean it is a bad thing, merely that you haven't reached a higher level yet, that of agape, which is selfless.

Acario: And how do I come to obtain agape?

Alyssa: Before you can understand this you must first understand proper eros.

Acario: Then teach me.

Alyssa: So I shall then, though I must profess I know little, and even that is uncertain at best.

Acario: I care not for your prefaces, just tell me what it is you think and I will wrestle with it.

Alyssa: So be it. You acknowledged that proper ordering is a Good. As a Christian it is your duty, and hopefully desire, to help others. While you might suffice with the attention of a lover you must prioritize your goals. The cultivation of the Beauty within the person must be first and foremost. Whether or not both are lovers or merely one is and the other only a beloved Good work may still be done and is commanded of you. Not that you would need such motivation such as a commandment when you are in love with this person.

Acario: Truthfully you speak.

Alyssa: The end of such cultivation would be that the person would become pregnant with Beautiful ideas. The self, consisting of all its parts, will be ordered in such a way so as that the person should be closer to God. As such they will be closer to the Good, they will become closer to Beauty, they will seek Truth, and they will become Lovers themselves. They will give birth to these ideas and begin to seek the Lord more than ever. You will glimpse God's work in the person, and they will become more Beautiful every day.

Acario: And yet we might still be left broken hearted.

Alyssa: Quite true. Yet it is only a symptom of eros having not reached some end.

Acario: What end? Eros of the Lord shall never end, for he is the unqualified infinite. I shall always desire him and never be fully satisfied. I shall sit by the throne forever yearning for more.

Alyssa: You sound disturbed by this. Do you not enjoy spending time with a lover?

Acario: Well, yes.

Alyssa: And you continue to want to be by them when truly in love?

Acario: Yes.

Alyssa: Then should it not be that to the nth degree? Eros in eternity is a state of bliss, not painful yearning.

Acario: Well then to what end should eros reach for?

Alyssa: The eros itself cannot reach agape. As you stated you might remain brokenhearted even after pouring out all of your being into another to cultivate Beauty within them. But this is not agape, for the pain is from one's selfish desire for the other to be their own.

Acario: It is the Beauty in them you want though. I thought we said this is the Lord.

Alyssa: Yes, they exceptionally participate in Beauty but the person is the Lord's, not yours. This doesn't mean your desire isn't noble, it simply means that you gave to another and remained thinking about your outcome for it. It isn't ignoble, but it isn't a perfect love either.

Acario: This is purely empirical, but it seems selfless love comes for but fleeting moments. Eventually we do something for ourselves. And by this I don't mean something like eating so we can stay alive, for this is out of necessity, rather I mean we do some contingent action for our desire and no other reason. How does one make agape a part of their being?

Alyssa: It is said God is Agape. We are commanded to agapao God and to agapao our fellow man, yet we seem stuck with eros and other forms of love like philia and stergo. Your eros is for agape, as you stated earlier. You want the Lord and you want to treat others with love and build them up for their own sake, yet you find yourself only capable of doing it at moments. This agape was fulfilled by Jesus Christ in his life, and we are called to be like Him. Perhaps at the end of sanctification we might achieve agape. But this is merely a way of shifting the question to "Then how do I reach the end of sanctification?"

Acario: My thought exactly.

Alyssa: It is a gift, dear boy. The Lord must bless you with agape. You cannot get to agape with agape, it's an infinite regress. You are trying to reach the Lord, which is Agape. If you already had it then you wouldn't need to be reaching for the Lord. Yet here you are crying out for it, thus you mustn't have it.

Acario: This doesn't quite seem solid though. It seems more like a posit and not a carefully worked out hypothesis made by working through contradictory ideas.

Alyssa: You seem to have missed the turn then.

Acario: Ok, can we run back through what just happened then please?

Alyssa: Por supuesto. You say you cultivate Beauty in another because it is of the Lord and because it is a Good thing to do.

Acario: Yes.

Alyssa: And that this is done because of eros' motivation, which is to obtain something you lack.

Acario: Yes.

Alyssa: So you lack the Lord.

Acario: Of course.

Alyssa: And the Lord is Agape?

Acario: Yes--ahhhh...Gotcha'.

Alyssa: So you see, you lack Agape. It is a divine love which we all yearn for. From an empirical standpoint it seems impossible to obtain since we constantly fail. But the stronger point is that if you yearn for it then you do not have it, and yearning for a thing does not make you obtain it, action must be had. Furthermore, the only way to obtain it is through the Lord since He is it. Thus, it must be a gift He gives to us and not something we can obtain on our own. The point of uncertainty here is whether or not God sees your eros and it somehow determines whether or not He decides to grace you with Agape.

Acario: How can I yearn a thing for myself which makes me yearn for the Lord and for others though? It seems like wanting to not want, a contradictory?

Alyssa: Well there's a clear distinction in temporality. The wanting is now but the having would be later. Now as an informal contradiction upon receiving said gift the desire for it would leave since you have what it is you yearned for. However, God is many things since he is the infinite, this doesn't say eros leaves altogether, as you said earlier, "[you] shall sit by the throne forever yearning for more." As we said, eros doesn't yearn for a thing once it receives it. Agape is a type of love that a human can experience, though absolute knowledge of God is not. Eros takes a step back and allows Agape to lead in one way, yet retains in another way, since each of the loves operates differently even though towards the same persons.

Acario: And what of the meantime? How does one cope with unrequited love?

Alyssa: You must be calm, be patient, in the moments it is hardest pray that you might have a moment of agape. As it is said, agape is kind, patient, it isn't jealous, and so on. Remember you are trying to build a balance which God will see and love, and choose to use as a conduit for his work. One way is to cultivate Beauty in another.

Acario: I know, but I had forgotten. As you said though the person will become more Beautiful every day. It will only seem to get worse.

Alyssa: Only if you stay in the mentality of your own desires. It will have to suffice to see the Lord has worked marvels in their life. As for your own desire for the person, there is nothing you can do about it, and it doesn't matter.