# Essay: Networks: sacred vs secular

This is the current revision of Essay: Networks: sacred vs secular as edited by at 21:24, 12 January 2012. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. What was it like?

It is more blessed to give than to receive. What does this mean, and what does it have to do with individualism?

To answer these questions, I'm going to begin with a little about networks.

a. e1, e2 =2
b. e1, e2, e3 =9
c. e1, e2, e2, e4 =>9

The above three, a. thru c., show the number of static network patterns for two, three, and four elements, in which the elements are connected in a simple linear fashion with priority (i.e., bias) given to whatever element with which the linear network begins.

Of course, if there is no limit to the number of current/sequential connections to any one or more of a finite set of co-elements, then the number of possible network patterns beginning with a given element is infinite, entailing that even for a two-element set (a.) the number of possible network patterns is infinite (rather than two).

But, so long as the number of elements is finite, the number of static network patterns is finite.

The middle rule, therefore, does not allow an infinite number of network patterns: each element exists in a common field such that only simple connections of any type (one-way terminal, one-way unlimited, two-way sequential biased terminal, two-way sequential biased unlimited, two-way sequential unbiased terminal, two-way sequential unbiased unlimited, two-way simultaneous terminal, two-way simultaneous unlimited) may obtain between any two elements.

The (positive) dynamics of the core human domestic relationship are not those of the material free market, but are the most informal, and thus, the most open, and positive open-ended, of network dynamics. Charity toward a stranger, as toward a lover, is therefore not rendered contingent on either material or psychic reciprocation from the receiver. Thus, unlike for any other kind of human relationship, the possible network patterns for the core domestic relation---and, thus, for its extensions---is infinite both in number and in essential-equality kind. Nothing is withheld from either by the other which the natural relationship between the two implies. Or, so I hope you get the idea from these non-exhaustive, non-foolproof words---as you would get if you were functionally as informal a fellow human to me in these words as one ought to be. In other words, I do not withhold my words contingent on anything from you, including that you understand what I mean (and do not mean) by them.

Jesus spoke, taught, healed, in the sacred matters without prior- or post-contingency of copyright (i.e., reputation) or material compensation. He simply gave, as if he were an unfallen human in an unfallen world, with no need to compete with others for an equitable measure of a lost Eden. In this way was he the most rugged of individuals, by a flawless knowledge-and-practice of the distinction between what is sacred and what is secular, between what is infinite and what is finite. Whoever is short in spreading the truth for sake of copyright and copyright’s material compensation builds a house on sand while pouring the ocean on that sand. Though that house is solid and beautiful, it is condemned to sink to the bottom of the sea of secularism, never to be seen, or lived in, again; ultimately as incoherent as defining Heaven as a hell of injustice.

In the beginning, God created all things purely compatible. But, then, humankind caused incompatibility to enter into the world; and, now, though blissful moments suggest otherwise, not even the most compatible things in the world are purely compatible. Each person in this world therefore most deeply desires that which we each lack: a pure compatibility with him or herself, not only in relation to others, but in relation to the entire creation. It is the sense of this lack that underlies the perception, on the part of a certain rationalistic/utilitarian twist of mind, that no one is ever purely selfless, but, that, everyone is, in fact, most basically, selfish. The connection has been broken, the fullness of Eden lost; the entire network is in constant need of repair. Therefore, without a wisdom befitting a knowledge of that lost Eden, a person becomes a tyrant, a lord of his or her personal triage in regard to any matter which his scruples allow. And, all this points to the singular, and most ultimate, divinity of a man who lived and died so balanced with others that none could find fault in him, even in his having lived at all. He did not live purely sacrificially, as if to tyrants whose every convenience demands satisfaction at his expense. No, he lived as a human being ought in relation to others in this very messed up world: requiring no more, and no less, for himself at any moment than what that moment could produce, by his grace towards others, in the way not only of others’ relief, but of others’ enlightenment: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.