Interpolated replies below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dewey, Douglas" <douglas.dewey@bernstein.com>
To: "Miki Kocic" <relapse@mikikocic.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:45 PM
Subject: RE: Basis for friendship (Was Re: my short "life is a cranberry"
speech)
> I'm not sure I understand your first paragraph. I follow the logic but
> not the premise: what is it that I am supposed to want? (This is a
> completely naive question and not a bit rhetorical).
It has been my history that people either want something from me or want me
to do something but don't want to take responsibility for their own desires,
choices, or actions, so they manipulate me into acting the way they want me
to and can later lie to themselves that what _they_ wanted is what _I_
wanted. It was obvious to me that you were trying to provoke me into
terminating contact between us so that you'd be off the hook for doing it
yourself. And your response merely confirms my suspicions. If I hadn't read
you correctly you would never have replied, and certainly wouldn't have
replied in a conciliatory fashion. Because it is obvious that, from your
perspective, we can't be friends because I don't make certain fundamental
assumptions about life that are _more_ fundamental to you than your
Catholicism. From my perspective, we can be friends and I am very much
yours.
> What I said was that the only basis for friendship was a mutual love of
> truth, not "common cause in a political project." I hope you acknowledge
> the significant difference, but since the misquote is so significant I
> have to assume it was deliberate. I believe a Jew and a Christian can be
> friends, as can even an atheist and a theist, though the closest of
> friendships will naturally be among those whose concept of truth match
> more comprehensively.
This "mutual love of truth" is itself a political project. The Western
Philosophical Tradition originating with Plato was an attempt by these
weirdos called philosophers to fit into society and be useful and accepted
members of it. Along the way philosophers realized that, in order to achieve
their modest goals, they had to reshape society around them and become the
mathematical points around which human reality revolves. This is why the
study of philosophy has so long been a matter of personality cults and, in
my experience, philosophy professors are among the most
teenage-girl-cliquish humans in existence. But I see them through the prism
of my Asperger's, because to me "society" and "social" are curse words. But
to make a long story short, this "mutual love of truth" has its roots in a
political desire--the desire to make a place for oneself in the world and,
ultimately, to rule the world. I do not seek either of those things and
therefore cannot make common cause with you on that basis.
In fact, the difference between us is even greater than you might think. You
seem to believe that I am some kind of threat to the current world order,
just another power-seeker who wants to build his own little private empire.
If that were so you and I could easily be friends, because I'd seek the same
thing for myself as Pope Benedict seeks for _him_self. But I oppose the very
existence of power, and it's my position that power should never have come
into being. That makes me so threatening to the various factions of power
brokers in the world that they make common cause against me. And don't be
facile. I don't have the trivial delusion that the FBI is spying on me, or
anything like it. In fact, I am very easy to pacify with minimal effort. My
enemies need not even incur much expense in keeping me pacified, because all
they have to do is leave my parents stuck with the cost of my room and
board. And if you, who have known me the longest, don't understand a single
word I'm saying then I can shoot my mouth off all I like without the powers
that be having any concern that I'll threaten their market share. Which is
all they understand and care about, because they doggedly insist on seeing
me as some kind of troublemaking demagogue, the way the Pharisees saw Jesus.
They have no choice. For them to realize how similar they all are to each
other, how identical the fictional characters Jason Bourne and Hannibal
Lecter are, would be the end of their intrepidity, because people such as
them are allergic to the slightest bit of self-understanding. So I
understand if you're not able to let yourself comprehend that I don't
threaten anyone's market share but rather the existence of the market
itself.
> Of course I don't think you actually think you're Jesus,
There is no "of course" about it. When I make my statement that God's love
for His children is pedophilic, people usually respond with "I'm sorry your
father did that to you." No one can be bothered with anyone else, so people
reduce each other to as simple and pat a formula as possible. Give them an
unusual perspective like mine and they seek to plug me into a trivial
pigeonhole so they don't have to bother with me any more. And, frankly,
you're no different. You just operate on a more verbally glib level. (And,
by the way, if you think you can "get to me" by destroying the life of a
decent and honourable man who is approaching 70, think again, because he
means nothing to me, and having you fabricate lies about him being a child
molester won't affect me. So I'm not sorry I gave you the idea.)
> but when you
> call God immoral you are judging God by your personal standard, placing
> your judgment and morality above God's, putting yourself in the logical
> place of God.
There you go again, assuming that I just want a market share of power.
You're also spouting a lot of glib and thoughtless propaganda you got from
some priest versed in the arts of explaining away honest doubts. Please be
aware that the Calliclean formulas used by priests and other power-brokers
don't impress me. I have been pushed outside society and have no reason to
give a damn about anything.
> A more logical (and perhaps humbler) conclusion is to
> reject that God exists because his morality is not up to the job
> description of omnipotent, loving deity.
You mean it's a glib and pat conclusion that would end up with me being
co-opted as an atheist and becoming part of the atheist camp, which, from my
perspective, is chums with the believers camp because you two seek to divide
the world between you and exclude all others. No thanks. I don't want to be
co-opted because I'm so accustomed to having nothing to lose that I now
quite like it. It means there's nothing for anyone to grab me by.
> At that point you still have to
> come up with where you got your yardstick, but at least you're not
> maintaining that God exists and is wrong at the same time.
And what's really wrong with maintaining that? Search your own conscience
and you'll see that what you see wrong with it is that it upsets the
religio-political apple cart. In fact, I maintain that GOD IS HELL. Quite
literally that. No, God is not the devil, God is _hell_. And every bit of
evidence I've come across in my lifetime confirms my opinion on that point.
And all of the people who have approached me to argue the opposite have
proven themselves to be mere wielders of sophist's formulas, much as you
are. I stand firmly by my emails to you about my conversations with Father
Greg and the guy on the internet. Use all of the teenage-girl devices you
wish about challenging my manhood and adulthood, and they will have zero
impact on me, because I see them as mere teenage-girl devices, and I know
very well that I don't qualify as either an adult or a man, and react with
"So what?"
> I don't have the skill or desire to manipulate you.
The skill is clearly absent. The desire is unwitting and unconscious and
comes from being too easily satisfied with the pablum you get fed by your
priest. But don't misunderstand me. I'm content if you remain Catholic. I
just don't like you using trivial formulas on me.
> I just don't want to
> waste your time and mine if all you have is contempt for me and
> everything I stand for.
I have great respect for the fact that you have done what most men in North
America would not dare try--to raise 10 children in the most expensive
community on this side of Japan. I have respect for you as a loving husband
and devoted father, and, as I already said, the second-best human being I've
ever met. I even have respect for your devotion to your faith and your
puzzlingly deep humility. My polemics are not attacks on you. They are
expressions of my own bottomless torment, because I have always lived in
hell on earth and always will, and you have developed a knack for pushing my
buttons.
> what is
> it you want from me?
I want you to have the courage to do something my tormentors have never had
the courage to do: Make your own decision based on your own thoughts and
feelings. Not to trick me into letting you off the hook, but take
responsibility for your own choices.
> What should we agree on as a basis of dialogue?
We're currently having one.
Miki
my email thread with Doug Dewey, part 2 
Linear Mode
