A lot of talk. We shall see.

If  the cries from the circles above regarding the death of our written language are true; if texting, blogs, and twitter have mortally wounded the nobility that was once called to mind by the passionate man armed with a pen; if the pen has, for the first time since guttenburg, been desposed by the sword, I wonder if an equivalent analogy will be created for the “much ink has been spilt”. As at the present I have no way of knowing, I will continue to use it and let posterity judge as it sees fit.

Much ink has been spilt over the overt romanticism and the fantastical existance painted by the old stories. By the old stories I of course refer to the disgusting foolishness of Romeo and Juliet, the appalling arroagance of Paris, and the infamous stupidity of Othello. Any man who is not aware that they live and die by a whim of some woman is a fool. Any society that is not aware that its men live and die by the whim of a woman is forever damned to breed failures.

Unfortunatley the gravity of such sin is not fealt chiefly by the men, however it is those same woman referred to earlier who are requried to bear the greatest burden. The willful ignorance of human nature does not sting man, for in his simple nature it is not for man to know the difference until it is too late, however it is woman who is saddled with such a load as to irrevocably alter her nature. Woman is forced to operate outside her bounds beause she has been cheated out of that which is rightfully hers.

It is almost fair to pity the cheaters, as one might pity that poor soul in The Last Crusade who was so foolish and so misguided, that after cheating his way to the room that held the Holy Grail, his very nature passed judgement on him by rendering a verdict which could only have one outcome. So too the society, and the man, that would thus cheat woman out of that which is rightfully hers, will ultimately suffer the same fate. And pity or no pity, rightfully so.

Moral absolutes or definitions applied from man to God are completely meaningless and absurd; nearly all of the terms we use when discussing morality lose all relevance and usefulness if applied to God.  We speak of good and bad, right and wrong, because we can choose between the two and we have a conscience, a society, a belief system defining actions as one or the other. However this way of thinking cannot and must not be applied to God. There are no potentialities in God’s existence, only what is. He is not I might, but I AM. God is the basis for morality. He defines good because he is good. Everything outside or contrary to God becomes evil by definition becuase it is not God.

Jokes are funny because they contain at least a grain of truth: put eight people in a room, ask them a question and you will get ten different answers. This is of course an exaggeration (you will only get nine), but the principal is there, people do not agree. It is for this reason that compromise exists. People do not agree and must therefore give up something in order to get something accomplished. This is not new, and a brief perusial of history will offer many examples of such compromises. The Great Compromise from the framing of the constitution for example, was reached in order to bridge the gap between congressional representation based on population and based on membership int he union. Such compromises helped to foster the birth of this great nation and are therefore both necessary and helpful, but there is a necessary evil inherent in every compromise: sacrifice. In order for a compromised to be reached, or even proposed, at least two items are listed as being less than primary and the suggestion is made that if they were to be offered on the altar of “the greater good” then all would be well. Therefore all compromises move away from the initial positions held. Principals are modified, ideals are limited, and hope is tempered. That is the nature of the beast.

There are of course many beasts that can be implicitely referenced by refering to their nature. Generally only context can identify the exact beast under discussion. But whether it be the capitalist marketplace, the politcal machine that is the contemporary government, or the workings of a relationship, all such referneces to the nature of the beast take for granted that the nature cannot be modified. Usually one is reminded of the nature as being entymologically related to the beast itself, that it is inherent and an essential part and that your only hope is to use the knowledge of the nature to work around it when possible and with it when neccessary, but never ever against it, because it cannot and will not be changed. Fatalistic perhaps, but that is why they call it a nature and not an inclination, it is the way it will be. Of course you can imagine scenarios where the Beast acts differently, where its nature is of a different kind, but there is no way to create such a scenario in the actual world. No, no matter how much time is spent conjuring up alternate realities, in the end the nature stands and the Beast is still the Beast.