The HighSchoolers:
The Penultimate and Final Chapters
G.D.O'Bradovich III
circa June 18, 2017
The High Schoolers, that enigmatic gaggle of goofs, who gather at sundry places.
What new insights can I write that hasn't been commented previously? In all likelihood nothing, which brings us to the present.
From previous essays, the Gentle Reader may know what I think and feel regarding the Highschoolers. We believe the ultimate insight is “What if?”, and we caution that diversion should rarely be sought. For I see in the group the “What if?” being answered both of being raised in Terre Haute and being with my brother. Alas, accidents of history determined that it was not to be. I can only assume that the Highschoolers represent the pinnacle of vicarious living, as a mutually supportive group and as the embodiment of brothers. For the “What if?” of the twins point to a clearer understanding than my imagination could achieve without encountering the twins. As a certain doctor observed, we covet what we see.
To write in that clear Modern style: the group does not need me. We can expand upon this fact and state that they have done fine without me which suggests the possibility, but not the certainty, that my involvement may become detrimental to either a part of the whole. This I will not allow.
It seems that my decision vis a vis the highschoolers has resulted in an unforeseen feeling: anguish. From this feeling, I must presume that I have never done anything that was not to benefit me in some manner. This lifetime of selfish behavior should not be unexpected from an amoral Occultist, yet we are confronted with the difficult decision to distance ourselves from what can only be described as a source of various benefits, both to my person and my work. We may reasonably conclude that this gut wrenching feeling is indicative of certain responsibilities of raising children. We know now why I never desired children, but relish improvising the rarely seen persona of “Uncle George” - I was aware that I could not make the choice of placing another before myself or my work. Clearly, Nature has not granted me the gift, mindset, or curse of self sacrifice.
When we speak of self sacrifice, we cannot but recall protestants and their understanding of vicarious atonement. By stepping from this position and seeing it for what it is, rather than what it is supposed to represent, we can understand the modern derision of modern Christianity.
The absurdity of the modern understanding -God temporary sacrifices himself for humanity’s redemption. We write “temporarily sacrifice” as Jesus, unlike all previous sacrifices, does not remain dead. It could be said that nothing changed, except for a lost weekend, which is a not altogether unknown phenomenon among the collegiate crowd.
We now know why contemporary potential converts cannot accept the modern exegesis that Jesus was god. For the convert is expected to believe that God did not know that he was to be resurrected, as found in Luke, although he did know, according to Mark.
Therefore, there are multiple issues with the modern opinions and subsequent explanations for both the crucifixion and the resurrection. The fundamental issue confronting the mature mind is that it is nonsensical. If we know the Orthodox understanding that our purpose is to become divine, then the western rejection of this explanation results in various possible explanations that range from the coherent (Jesus is the archangel Michael) to the fantastic (becoming gods over our own planets).
We must note that Mormon theology is closer, but not identical, to the Orthodox concept of theosis than is the mainline protestant explanation of the resurrection.
The protestant understanding that the incarnation can change the believer's behaviors is a modern justification for certain theological and social innovations.
We are not surprised that people who eagerly accept the claims of Protestantism are the same people who cannot change their behavior, become frustrated with the inability to change, and leave the church. However, we are surprised with those who are frustrated and stay committed to the church that promises, or least promotes, change, but cannot “make good” men better- no doubt due entirely to the “lack of faith” on the part of the individual and not to a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of Christianity. It seems that modern Christians “lead lives of quiet desperation.
What new insights can I write that hasn't been commented previously? In all likelihood nothing, which brings us to the present.
From previous essays, the Gentle Reader may know what I think and feel regarding the Highschoolers. We believe the ultimate insight is “What if?”, and we caution that diversion should rarely be sought. For I see in the group the “What if?” being answered both of being raised in Terre Haute and being with my brother. Alas, accidents of history determined that it was not to be. I can only assume that the Highschoolers represent the pinnacle of vicarious living, as a mutually supportive group and as the embodiment of brothers. For the “What if?” of the twins point to a clearer understanding than my imagination could achieve without encountering the twins. As a certain doctor observed, we covet what we see.
To write in that clear Modern style: the group does not need me. We can expand upon this fact and state that they have done fine without me which suggests the possibility, but not the certainty, that my involvement may become detrimental to either a part of the whole. This I will not allow.
It seems that my decision vis a vis the highschoolers has resulted in an unforeseen feeling: anguish. From this feeling, I must presume that I have never done anything that was not to benefit me in some manner. This lifetime of selfish behavior should not be unexpected from an amoral Occultist, yet we are confronted with the difficult decision to distance ourselves from what can only be described as a source of various benefits, both to my person and my work. We may reasonably conclude that this gut wrenching feeling is indicative of certain responsibilities of raising children. We know now why I never desired children, but relish improvising the rarely seen persona of “Uncle George” - I was aware that I could not make the choice of placing another before myself or my work. Clearly, Nature has not granted me the gift, mindset, or curse of self sacrifice.
When we speak of self sacrifice, we cannot but recall protestants and their understanding of vicarious atonement. By stepping from this position and seeing it for what it is, rather than what it is supposed to represent, we can understand the modern derision of modern Christianity.
The absurdity of the modern understanding -God temporary sacrifices himself for humanity’s redemption. We write “temporarily sacrifice” as Jesus, unlike all previous sacrifices, does not remain dead. It could be said that nothing changed, except for a lost weekend, which is a not altogether unknown phenomenon among the collegiate crowd.
We now know why contemporary potential converts cannot accept the modern exegesis that Jesus was god. For the convert is expected to believe that God did not know that he was to be resurrected, as found in Luke, although he did know, according to Mark.
Therefore, there are multiple issues with the modern opinions and subsequent explanations for both the crucifixion and the resurrection. The fundamental issue confronting the mature mind is that it is nonsensical. If we know the Orthodox understanding that our purpose is to become divine, then the western rejection of this explanation results in various possible explanations that range from the coherent (Jesus is the archangel Michael) to the fantastic (becoming gods over our own planets).
We must note that Mormon theology is closer, but not identical, to the Orthodox concept of theosis than is the mainline protestant explanation of the resurrection.
The protestant understanding that the incarnation can change the believer's behaviors is a modern justification for certain theological and social innovations.
We are not surprised that people who eagerly accept the claims of Protestantism are the same people who cannot change their behavior, become frustrated with the inability to change, and leave the church. However, we are surprised with those who are frustrated and stay committed to the church that promises, or least promotes, change, but cannot “make good” men better- no doubt due entirely to the “lack of faith” on the part of the individual and not to a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of Christianity. It seems that modern Christians “lead lives of quiet desperation.
***
Due to our finite Nature, we cannot know if our decision regarding the High Schoolers is correct, therefore, we are confronted with uncertainty and doubt, otherwise said, human, all too human. As we cannot know the correctness of our decision, we must rely upon our hierarchy of values to guide us. Unfortunately, we cannot know.
***
Osiris had no foreknowledge of death, for if he did, he would not have stepped into that well proportioned box. Nor did Osiris know that Isis would resurrect him, therefore, his suffering was real, and his primordial fear of a violent death was terrifying. From what scientists have discovered, the current opinion is that the followers of Horus did not believe that they would approach perfection in this world, but they would be with their Lord in the next world.
***
The Egyptian religion seems to make a distinction between the Risen Lord, Osiris, and his son, Horus, the son of the widow, Isis. This demarcation of roles and personalities is oftentimes blurred as the attributes of Osiris and Horus are conflated through various texts and the interpretations thereof.
It seems that Osiris was originally the Lord of the Dead, of the night, and his sin, Horus was the Lord of the day (Hrw=day=Horus). Isis would be the intermediary between her husband and hwr son. Celestially speaking, Isis would be the morning twilight. From these conclusions, the parallel can be made for Nephthys, the evening twilight, and her son, Anubis. Anubis is said to be the son of either Osiris or Set.
Since Anubis assisted Isis with the preparation of Osiris’ body, Anubis must be older than Horus. Horus is the first born son of Isis, Anubis is an older son of Osiris, and Babi is well attested to be the eldest sin of Osiris, which we associate with the night sky. Hence, Babi, the night sky, is the oldest, Anubis, the evening, is the second son, and the morning sun, is Horus, otherwise said, the evening and the morning are the first day.
Thoth, Beaky to his friends, is the personification of wisdom and his consort, Ma’at is truth, justice, and the Egyptian way of life.
Arriving before the Lord, the deceased recites the forty two statements from the negative confession. The decedent’s claim of innocence, but not sinlessness or perfection, is weighted against the feather of Ma’at. The deceased’s heart is found to be neither heavier or lighter than Ma’at and he is allowed to join Osiris in the next world.
The easily understood story of Osiris should be compared to the impossibly difficulties of the revealed religion that is modern Christianity- not one in a thousand adherents can explain the premise of modern Christianity. The Gentle Reader may, due to his ignorance, inquire of those who claim to know and to understand, and ask twenty questions a la Socrates. Needless to say, the result will be arguments and frustrations, not from the Gentle Reader, but from the modern Christian. The inability to clarify or discuss what modern Christianity is or is not should be an indication that it does not touch upon reality. While we cannot know if the Egyptians could defend their views of Osiris, it is evident that modern Christianity does not understand either theology or the necessary implications of their statements or confessions.
It seems that Osiris was originally the Lord of the Dead, of the night, and his sin, Horus was the Lord of the day (Hrw=day=Horus). Isis would be the intermediary between her husband and hwr son. Celestially speaking, Isis would be the morning twilight. From these conclusions, the parallel can be made for Nephthys, the evening twilight, and her son, Anubis. Anubis is said to be the son of either Osiris or Set.
Since Anubis assisted Isis with the preparation of Osiris’ body, Anubis must be older than Horus. Horus is the first born son of Isis, Anubis is an older son of Osiris, and Babi is well attested to be the eldest sin of Osiris, which we associate with the night sky. Hence, Babi, the night sky, is the oldest, Anubis, the evening, is the second son, and the morning sun, is Horus, otherwise said, the evening and the morning are the first day.
Thoth, Beaky to his friends, is the personification of wisdom and his consort, Ma’at is truth, justice, and the Egyptian way of life.
Arriving before the Lord, the deceased recites the forty two statements from the negative confession. The decedent’s claim of innocence, but not sinlessness or perfection, is weighted against the feather of Ma’at. The deceased’s heart is found to be neither heavier or lighter than Ma’at and he is allowed to join Osiris in the next world.
The easily understood story of Osiris should be compared to the impossibly difficulties of the revealed religion that is modern Christianity- not one in a thousand adherents can explain the premise of modern Christianity. The Gentle Reader may, due to his ignorance, inquire of those who claim to know and to understand, and ask twenty questions a la Socrates. Needless to say, the result will be arguments and frustrations, not from the Gentle Reader, but from the modern Christian. The inability to clarify or discuss what modern Christianity is or is not should be an indication that it does not touch upon reality. While we cannot know if the Egyptians could defend their views of Osiris, it is evident that modern Christianity does not understand either theology or the necessary implications of their statements or confessions.
***
For unknown reasons, it seems like the Pisces and the Cancer Gemini could not leave the vehicle fast enough, leaving the Virgo and Yours Truly in silence. After a few moments alone, a certain elder gentleman seized the opportunity, approached the Virgo, asked for fifty cents, and while the Virgo methodically searched for loose change, the man explained, or attempted to justify, his need for a “pack of smokes”. When the Virgo finished his act of charity, his good deed was immediately reimbursed. As the Virgo opened his hand and received two quarters, I responded to his quizzical gaze, “I will never be like that.”
***
At their subsequent departure, I believed that our always interesting and oftentimes entertaining adventures were finished. However, an unforeseen event, that a theatre would host a performance, returned the trio into my company. Although they arrived less than a half an hour later, the Cancer Gemini’s posture and attitude had devolved. As I consider myself one of the few living experts on Cancer Geminis, I calmly and carefully charted my course as only a Capricorn Occultist could. Most if the trip was passed in silence, but when the destination came into sight, I said that I agree with his conclusion because of his reasoning.
I believe that he neither understood or fully grasped my reasoning (nor the reason for the interruption of the silence) to accept his reasoning, which is identical to my reasoning. The Cancer Gemini lethargically responded that he was unsure of his reasoning and I believe that he somehow, perhaps with Beaky’s assistance, intuitively reached not only a conclusion, but reached the correct conclusion. It was apparent to Yours Truly that the Cancer Gemini’s thoughts were elsewhere, perhaps pondering an insoluble mystery of the Universe, then again, perhaps not.
I believe that he neither understood or fully grasped my reasoning (nor the reason for the interruption of the silence) to accept his reasoning, which is identical to my reasoning. The Cancer Gemini lethargically responded that he was unsure of his reasoning and I believe that he somehow, perhaps with Beaky’s assistance, intuitively reached not only a conclusion, but reached the correct conclusion. It was apparent to Yours Truly that the Cancer Gemini’s thoughts were elsewhere, perhaps pondering an insoluble mystery of the Universe, then again, perhaps not.
***
