Digital Ownership

Digital items are immaterial, and this is easy to prove.  Cryptocurrencies are not physical currencies.  Digital films are not physical discs.  Downloadable video games are not physical discs or cartridges.  They are not tangible objects or environments comprised of matter that can at least hypothetically be grasped.  This does not mean that they cannot or do not exist, only that they have no physical substance as a car, a Blu-ray, a hardcover book, or physical furniture would have.  It is logically possible for items and environments to exist within a virtual landscape or space metaphysically separated from the natural world except for the fact that technology, constructed out of materials originating in the external world, is what brings the virtual universe into existence.  It is indeed possible for physical things to bring nonphysical things into existence, and the notion of electronic technology birthing a virtual plane of reality is a conceptual example of this.

Even cultures that are heavily structured around ownership of property can still have thriving sales of virtual objects, especially with the legions of microtransactions dominating more and more of the gaming industry.  Indeed, everything from video game DLCs to NFTs is rather popular today.  Less popular is how little out of all the things that can be digitally purchased is actually owned by the buyer, as opposed to just licensed, rented, or used.  Digital ownership is only present in a fairly limited subset of virtual purchases.  If a company revokes access to a live service or goes out of business or, in some cases, if a simple internet connection is lost, digital items or services can be forfeited.  There are some digital items that one can directly own or preserve, but they are very specific in nature.

With something like streaming for movies, television, music, and even gaming, the only thing a person owns is access to the content, and even that is temporary unless there are continued payments.  With a digital purchase of a film, say, from Amazon Prime, one might not have to pay continuously for membership to a streaming service, but the movie is not owned in the strictest sense just there was a purchase; it is licensed.  Aditionally, without some way to access the internet, even this access is beyond someone's reach unless they have a way to download the flim itself.  The only way to own something purchased digitally is to download it to a device's self-contained storage if that is an option, but when downloading almost any form of content besides images or music can require large amounts of storage space or might still be dependent on a subscription to a service, this is a very restrictive method of doing one's best to ensure one still has what was paid for if the company that sold it dissolves or withdraws the license.

Digital ownership is in many cases an illusion or irrelevant to what it actually happening with strictly online purchases and media consumption.  The irony of digital purchases of this kind, the kind where there is no actual ownership even after payment, thriving in a society like America where physical private property is such an established norm is immense, deep irony, but it is the reason why physical ownership will always be superior to digital licenses as far as media goes when it comes to obtaining property.  With some purchases, like NFTs, there is no physical version to buy.  With others, entertainment in particular, there is often a physical release to mirror the digital one, and for consumers that have the money and the space, the physical purchase is much better at ensuring true ownership.  Yes, the physical medium that allows one to view a movie or play a game could deteriorate, or the digital software accessed through it could still sometimes be intertwined with internet features that could perhaps be used to lock users out of at least some aspects of the content, but this is the closest thing to property that a person could have with regards to media.

The very nature of ownership is such that physical items can be owned but not digital ones--unless one is somehow able to transfer the digital item to a device which can store it in the event of a company closing down, technical difficulties that obstruct internet access, or even the petty whims of a corporate figure leading to anti-consumer policies.  Misleading or vague corporate terms of use and the allure of convenience for consumers or profits for businesses cannot make digital ownership anything but the ownership of contingent, temporary, or limited access to something that might be available to own and use in a sense far more removed from whether a company stays running or decides to not shut down access.  In a great many instances, digital media does not belong to the buyer, or it can be easily revoked or lost based upon circumstances beyond the consumer's control.  The situational convenience of digital media remains, and it is of course irrational only to assume things or believe that which is conceptually false, not to actually buy things in a digital format, but the foundational nature of digital ownership is not what consumers might wish it to be.

God And Empty Space

Empty space, like the laws of logic, would exist in the absence of God and possesses a necessity not in itself, like logical axioms and other logical truths, but a necessity reliant on reason.  Without logical truths, nothing could be true, but it is true by necessity that there would still be vast, unoccupied space where matter could go even if God had never created anything physical.  Even if God ceased to exist or had never existed, there would still be this nonphysical place that could have held matter if only a deity had brought it into being, though it too relies on logical possibility and necessity for its own existence.  Space is certainly more fundamental to reality than the universe itself in one sense, and as diverse as the physical cosmos is (at least on the level of our subjective perception), even it in its entirety it is nowhere near the size of what would otherwise be the empty space that stretches on endlessly.

The universe would have to be omnipresent, like reason and God, to match metaphysical space in this regard.  This means it could not expand, for there would be no unfilled space for it to expand into.  Still, as the direct or indirect handiwork of the uncaused cause, the universe is in many ways a demonstration of sheer power from the supreme being.  Though it cannot create, change, or nullify logical truths, this God can bring matter forth or manipulate it in any way that is logically possible.  Matter, then, is dependent on reason (as are all things) for its very possibility and more, on space to even have a place to exist, and on God for the act of creation that established its existence.

It is empty space, and not this majestic cosmos with its behaviors and structures that stretch from a galactic scale to a seeming quantum one, that would still be in existence had God never created.  The Bible itself is consistent with this rationalistically verifiable truth about metaphysics.  Genesis 1:1 only says that God created "the heavens and the earth," progressively shaping them in what the text would suggest are consecutive days, even if there were millions or billions of years between the initial creation of matter and the specific events of each of the subsequent seven creation days (whether they were literal days or not).  Nowhere does Genesis say God created space itself, as opposed to outer space, and it would be demonstrably false in this regard if it said so.

John 1's expanded details about the creation of matter are also consistent with all of this, adding that Jesus created along with Yahweh and that "without him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3).  Neither part of the Bible claims that nothing at all existed before creation, and they even clearly say that both Yahweh and Christ preceded creation, with the laws of logic and empty space being the only default existing things.  Still, only logical truths exist in themselves without any dependence on something else even for their possibility, unlike even empty space or the divine creator himself, supreme among all beings for being more metaphysically fundamental than any being or creature of any kind.  To emphasize the point once again, without God, empty space would still be devoid of the universe in all of its expansiveness and complexity, a potential, nonphysical storage area whose function is not being utilized.

If metaphysical space, however--not the outer space of the physical universe with its nebulas and asteroids, but the nonphysical, infinite area in which matter is or could be held--has a quality that even God does not in that it is by nature an uncreated thing that would exist in his absence, does this make space more foundational or otherwise significant than God?  First, the laws of logic, more central and grand than space, are more fundamental than all and are necessarily true in themselves.  Even God could not exist and nothing could be true about God without logical axioms and more already being true; they alone do not depend on anything else for their veracity and very existence.  Space could not exist, and nothing would or could be true about, it if it was not logically possible or necessary.  This is true of God as well, but God is a conscious being, a being that can create and experience and, if it has a moral nature, that grounds objective goodness and beauty themselves.

God is thus more metaphysically significant all around, with only the laws of logic being more central to reality (they dictate and constrain all things and could not have been any more foundational or vital).  Metaphysical space is only a prerequisite to the existence of matter, not to the God who created matter and could dispell it with a thought if only he willed.  It also lacks the utter importance of logical truths that it ironically shares uncreated existence with.  Empty space, as an uncreated and logically necessary existent that is necessary in light of reason and not in itself as is true of reason, does paradoxically have a quality that God does not--but God eclipses it nonetheless.  Oh, how the nature and nuances of reality, both when it comes to strictly logical truths, general metaphysics, and Biblical theology, are not what so many would expect them to be!

Personal Traditions As A Rationalist

It is possible to instate personal traditions alone or with a close friend or spouse that are indeed traditions and yet are not irrational.  Eating a certain style of food on the same night each week is one possible example.  So is rewatching the same movie once a year or visiting the same location on the first day of every single month.  Very different from thinking that prison or flaying or crucifixion is just because of legal traditions, or from thinking that popularity or any length of time makes any kind of philosophical concept true, this can be done without holding to any fallacies or doing anything immoral.

The error rests in believing that having traditions is mandatory in itself or that people are justified in believing assumptions or falsities because of social norms, or in thinking that something that is true or morally good is true or good because it is traditional to believe or act as if it is the case.  A traditional belief or activity might even be genuinely valid, but how many people approve of it or how long it has been entrenched in a society are utterly irrelevant.  Something is true because it is true.  Something false is false even if the whole world pretends otherwise.  Rationalists can fully submit to reason, as is within everyone's grasp, and choose personal traditions that are not irrational.

In order to not be conducted irrationally, traditions both have to not require anything contrary to reason or morality on their own and also be pursued without any sort of delusions on the part of the participant.  The intentions and reasons for which someone does it are also a factor, rather than just whether the thing itself is permissible.  If it is not true that drinking water at precisely 4:02 PM is morally obligatory, then people are not in error by doing or not doing this.  If they think that the pairing of this action and timing is obligatory, then they would not be in alignment with reality.  

Likewise, if making assumptions is considered rational or something evil is practiced and perceived to be good, then all who believe it, as used to it as they might be, are irrationalistic.  Traditions are arbitrary and have nothing to do with the nature of reality that does not depend on what people think, say, or pursue.  This is why someone is free to choose personal traditions if they do not conflict with rationalism or moralism: anything else is not problematic in itself and thus preference or pragmatic goals are the only relevant factors.

This is not metaphysical/moral relativism.  Logical truths and moral obligations cannot vary based upon time, geography, preference, or awareness (or the lack thereof).  It is a reaction to the logically necessary fact that all individuals are free to do anything that does not contradict reason and morality.  There is no irrationality if no untruth is believed and no assumption is made.  There could be no sin where there is no obligation that has been violated.  Rationalists can partake in certain arbitrary norms with non-rationalists or create their own personal rhythms all without being on the wrong side of reality like non-rationalists would be, as slaves to assumptions and in ignorance or denial of reason's real nature, if they did the exact same things.

The Parable Of The Workers In The Vineyard

Degrees of reward (Matthew 25:14-23) and degrees of punishment (Luke 12:47-48, Revelation 20:12-13) are Biblical doctrines, necessarily following from varying degrees/forms of righteousness and sin.  It follows by logical necessity that if certain things are evil or certain things are good, to embrace the former or disregard the latter with a greater intensity or in weightier ways is objectively worse than more minor infractions.  To murder, kidnap, or sexually abuse a fellow human disregards their value more than secret words of malice, for example.  Similarly, to do as God says with rationalistic motives and correct priorities is better, on the Christian worldview, than halfhearted, selective, emotionalistic concern for God.

The parable of the workers in the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16 does not focus on these things.  Jesus tells the story of how a man who owns a vineyard hires workers at different times of day, offering them a denarius for their labor (Matthew 20:2).  The exact value of this pay in the day of Jesus and the equivalent of this pay today are not relevant to the core of the parable.  Ultimately, this parable is about how one aspect of what the Christian God offers is to be experienced and enjoyed by all who commit to him.  Once the landowner has repeatedly gathered more workers (20:1-7), he has his foreman summon the workers to be given their compensation.

The workers who began their labor at an earlier time of the day are shocked or confused at how they are all receiving a denarius (20:10).  Even so, they themselves agreed to work for such a price!  Matthew 20:13-15 provides the landowner's response: "'But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am not being unfair to you.  Didn't you agree to work for a denarius?  Take your pay and go.  I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you.  Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?  Or are you envious because I am generous?"'"

In this case, the denarius of the story is analogous to the eternal life provided by Christ.  All who commit to God in repentance and sincerity are to receive eternal life according to the Bible, no matter when in their life or how close to death they turned to Yahweh or Christ.  A person who commits on their deathbed after a life of irrationalism, egoism, and cruelty and a person who commits in their youth and lives faithfully for God (and to clarify a major point, faithfulness rather than epistemological faith is what is rational and what is sought by God) are all said to be destined for everlasting life.

At the same time, greater righteousness--though it is the mental act (yes, any change of mind or heart or loyalty is something a person must do) of commitment to God that solidifies redemption--deserves greater reward.  A hypocritical, emotionalistic, and otherwise irrationalistic Christian who neither understood Christian theology nor extended philosophy is not worthy of the same glories as someone who shed or avoided such folly.  What people do with their circumstances and talents even apart from discovering and savoring philosophical truths is a matter of reward, as addressed in the parable of the talents only five chapters later in Matthew.

Without eternal life, there cannot be degrees of reward within that eternal life, and so every genuine follower of Yahweh and Christ at least receives the former itself.  This much is offered by divine mercy, for even the suspension of just punishment, which the Bible clearly teaches is cessation of conscious existence in hell (Ezekiel 18:4, Revelation 20:14-15), is a mercy even if it was not followed by anything particularly gracious.  It is a love of mercy that brings Yahweh and Jesus to generously offer eternal life as the landowner of the parable offered a denarius to even the workers who worked the least.  Other parables of Christ and other sections of the Bible altogether are what addresses the variance of rewards and punishments even if eternal life and cosmic death themselves are received by many.

The Term "Woke"

Just being a true rationalist, and a rationalistic Christian specifically, in the sea of non-rationalistic individuals and societies is like being awake in an urgent situation and trying to wake up people who fight to stay asleep.  As long as just one person refuses to align with reason and forsake all assumptions or errors, there is someone who is philosophically asleep even if they are awake, their mind engaged with the external world and not just its own mental imagery.  It would not be incorrect to call them asleep and rationalists awake, but the predominant use of similar language is almost solely in a political context, where so many people ignore or forget that issues like racism, abortion, economics, and more are first and foremost metaphysical, epistemological, and moral issues before they are political, since the nature of political systems depends on much more foundational truths about all things.

More often than not, this language is used pejoratively by conservatives who pretend like any attack on or challenging of the status quo is irrational, evil, and liberal in the sense associated with contemporary Democrats.  The accusation of "woke" is thrown even at entertainment or a person that simply admits things like how men can be sensitive or victims, women can be powerful and independent, or white people are not the only people on Earth.  Failing to look past words and emotions to reason and ideas, these conservatives think that all of these societal trends, which are on their own progressive in the rational kinds of way, are poisonous even though they are in service to important truths when pursued without emotionalism.

Conservatives have their own supposedly "woke" ideologies, even if they do not use the word to describe themselves and their asinine philosophy of conserving traditions and, if they are actually consistent, refusing anything else on a metaphysical or epistemological level.  Their legions of conspiracy theories, their suddenly overt denouncement of things some of them once accepted (like films starting black leads), and their irrationalistic stupor make them very much like the kind of idiotic liberal they think they are superior to.  In truth, they think they are awake and liberals are asleep, when they are all fools unworthy of the laws of logic they rely on whether or not they realize it or live for them.  Nevertheless, many very basic but selectively affirmed tenets of liberalism are actually rational and Biblical, even if conservatives are more likely to pretend to be in alignment with both reason and the Bible.

While there are multiple ideas associated with liberalism that are true or good, either by logical necessity or within the context of the Biblical worldview, they are unfortunately believed alongside falsities or on the basis of assumptions, usually chosen because of sheer emotionalism, no matter their truth or logical verifiability.  Some elements of contemporary liberalism, and far more than with contemporary American conservatism, are at least bastardizations of things that no genuine rationalist would reject and that no thoroughly Biblical Christian would ever oppose.  Conservatives, on the contrary, mostly cling to just tradition and tradition alone, forsaking reason, God, morality, science, and their fellow humans whenever it is convenient for them or whenever it strikes them as pragmatically "necessary."

The difference in the ramifications of certain ideas is that a political liberal in present day America, to give an example, is a hypocrite for not being strictly egalitarian as opposed to misandrist or racist against white people.  A political conservative is a hypocrite for believing that men and women do not deserve to be treated harshly or slanderously in various ways because of their gender.  Liberals often are just as stupid as conservatives, yes; however, conservatism is inherently irrational because it is about tradition and slow societal changes rather than objective logical, moral, or other truths.  True ideas and not people are what constitute the nature of reality.  They are all asleep, or else they would be rationalistic and Christian and neither conservative nor liberal.  Conservatives are just far more distant from the truth than they imagine when they mockingly use the term "woke" even in reference to truths and righteous people.

When Marketing Encourages The Fallacies Of Stereotypes

There is no power of marketing to shape worldviews or incite grand spending unless a person allows it to.  In a society that has very rampant sexism, racism, or ageism, though, marketing that appeals to or perhaps even outright encourages these fallacious stereotypes is likely to be at least moderately successful, since marketing like this is crafted around what consumers act as if they want.  Just like bipartisan political structures and fitheistic churches, this kind of marketing becomes an extension of someone's irrationalism, a business version of one someone with power doing as they wish even though the ideas they are treating as true are demonstrably false and are not even really their primary concern.  Mindlessly generating as much revenue as possible is the primary goal, and marketing that appeals to fallacious ideas can then appeal to fallacious thinkers--and there is no shortage of the latter.

Marketing can easily present clothing, technology, or household items intended to make men or women or people of various races identify with arbitrary social constructs rather than humanity and individuality (and even then, humanity and individuality only in light of reason and morality).  Some marketers or their employers might realize that stereotypes are false and assumed, but out of irrationality just act otherwise, and others might have never thought about the issue or cared, but what all businesspeople of these kinds have in common is that they are slaves to greed and not truth.  Any truths that they happen to stumble into as non-rationalists are only acknowledged or approved of when they somehow can be used to make money at the expense of knowing or honoring the truth.  What they think is money for the sake of money is their objective in life, and marketing might manipulate the unintelligent quite easily when it comes to stereotypes.

As such, the falsity of stereotypes and the inherent epistemological invalidity of believing in them makes marketing of this kind irrationalistic in intent and unjust.  Some prominent examples of how, for instance, gender stereotypes would be manipulated for marketing purposes relate to how women supposedly dislike video games or how men supposedly do not care about clothing that accentuates their bodies or is more colorful than is culturally encouraged.  Because of these assumptions and errors, products can be sold by idiots to idiots, with few or none of them actually pausing to realize just how erroneous the concepts and motivations behind this objectively are.  This is not an intrinsic part of marketing, it is vital to clarify.  In a society structured like America, it just happens to be what many people will blindly indulge in.  Marketing can be used with rationalistic motivations and complete philosophical honesty.

Anyone who does purposefully or lazily constructs their marketing otherwise is interested only in the truth that a certain kind of consumer is willing to pay money to fit into stereotypes (or make it appear that they do when they know they do not), not in any truth that does not make him or her money.  This is why ads and television spots and emails might be made as if someone likes a certain activity, food, aesthetic style, musical genre, or technological device because they are male, female, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, old, young, and so on.  It is of course not only epistemologically invalid to believe stereotypes are true since they must involve assumptions, but even the epistemological disparity between one person's psychological traits and another is only there because of the conceptual distinction, because there is objectively no connection between something like gender or race and personality.  Marketing does not have to exclude being clever or culturally relevant in not promoting stereotypes, but fallacious and deceptive marketing can never be clever except when it comes to expressing stupidity.

Pascal's Wager

Pascal's wager is neither a logical proof nor a probabilistic evidence.  Acknowledging (in its less irrational forms) that atheism entails nihilism and that theism at least offers the potential for a pleasant afterlife, it is really about emotionally persuading people that the ramifications of a certain idea are more appealing than the ramifications of an alternative idea, with no inherent concentration on logical truth, possibility, or proof.  As such, Pascal's wager is not an argument, as some people call it, for God's existence.  No, it is an argument for belief in or commitment to (the two are not the same!) a major philosophical stance regardless of its truth or verifiability, rooted not in the necessary truths of reason and in absolute epistemological certainty, but in the subjective appeal of a given outcome as opposed to another.

Even aside from the fact that someone genuinely believing Pascal's wager has assumed to know God's character, that he is benevolent or that he has created an afterlife for humans who submit to him, this entire stance is not about truth and knowledge at all!  It reflects one of two broad categories of errors non-rationalists make regarding theism.  That an uncaused cause exists by logical necessity (in that something with causal abilities has always existed, not in that the uncaused cause could not cease to exist as is true of the laws of logic) is something that non-theists are too stupid to realize or accept, and that God cannot be known to exist by humans through anything except recognition of the logical necessity of an uncaused cause is a delusion of most theists across history.

For the former, unfamiliarity or discomfort with rationalistic metaphysics and epistemology keeps them enslaved to personal assumptions or to cultural trends, which at times include a bias against supernaturalism in general and theism in particular.  For the latter, an emotionalistic dependence on faith, tradition, so-called authority figures (there could be no ultimate authorities besides logic, God, and morality) keeps them shackled to idiocy like fitheism or other theological assumptions and errors.  Neither atheists nor fitheists are rational people, and their positions--that an uncaused cause does not exist and that God can be known/should be believed to exist on epistemological faith--are false by necessity.  It is not even the case that they could have been true.

Again, Pascal's wager is not even an argument in the sense some of its imbecilic proponents think.  It is highly irrationalistic.  Because of this, it is often embraced only out of a desperate emotionalism, which is in turn rooted in the desire of someone too philosophically incompetent to align with reason to convince themselves that a subjectively appealing concept is true--or at least a valid belief with or without rationalistic proof.  God's existence is a very philosophically vital thing one way or another, and the facts that an uncaused cause does exist and that it can be known to exist are trivialized or ignored by those who think Pascal's wager is rational.  No rational person wagers with belief.  There can be probabilistic evidence for or against logically possible things even when the logical proof cannot be accessed by beings with human limitations, yes, though rational people can fully distinguish between evidence and proof (which is logical necessity that can be known) and only believe in what is verifiable, which is the same as whatever is true by logical necessity.  Pascal's wager does not even appeal to any actual mere evidence for God's existence, much less the specific deity of Christianity it is often cited in defense of.

The Metaphysics Of Dreams

As images in the mind when one sleeps, dreams are immaterial.  They do not correspond to the external world, and since consciousness is immaterial whatever its causal relationship with the body is and whether it survives the death of the body (though the Bible does not actually teach this, saying instead that dead humans must be resurrected to again be conscious), dreams can only be nonphysical things.  However, a consciousness without a body, though it could have auditory or visual perceptions that do not connect with any outside stimuli, would be unable to feel physical sensations at all, having no capacity for physical experiences of even a partly distorted kind.  If one is experiencing physical sensations, one must be contacting something made of matter, even if only one's body, no matter its true appearance.  If one is contacting matter, one cannot be dreaming.  This is the sole way to know such a thing for a being with human limitations.

Knowing these things is only possible by knowing that logical truths and one's own consciousness cannot be illusions and then letting reason lead them step by step (though proving one is not dreaming is extremely precise and likely to be difficult initially, to the point where even rationalists might not discover all of this).  There could be non-rationalists who think that their experiences in the external world are what reveal to them moment by moment if they are dreaming or awake--but they also just assume that there is an external world, perhaps believing they can "know" that they are dreaming when they perceive abnormal sights (the phenomena in the world of matter could change into any logically possible pattern or event, of which there are many).  As ironically close as they are, their belief is like that of someone believing in God because of a sense of his presence rather than because of the logical necessity of an uncaused cause.  The conclusion is in part true and knowable with absolute certainty, not the probabilistic, perception-based evidences of most experiences that could turn out to be an illusion beyond the fact that one is perceiving the experience.

It can be very difficult to discover the proof that there is a material world of any kind, especially since only one of the senses--understood in light of an absolute, assumption-free alignment with the objective truths of logic--is relevant to proving this.  In no way is it as easy as opening one's eyes and seeing tables, houses, plants, pets, or other belongings.  The existence of matter of any kind is not obvious from hearing sounds that seem like they originate from material objects like alarm clocks or falling branches or cars or even the bodies of other people.  Similarly, it does not logically follow from waking up to ordinary, expected sensory experiences that through this one can know that one is now awake.

The laws of nature and the specific appearances of environments and items that one perceives might not even be the ones that really exist, and they also could have been different because there is no logical necessity in them being as they seem right now, unlike logical axioms.  Because of this, they could also change at any time on the level of metaphysics or epistemological perception involving the senses.  They are wholly, objectively irrelevant to whether one is dreaming.  Beyond these facts, one could also have a dream with "realistic" events (with no sudden powers of flight, for example) and perceive real or imagined abnormalities while awake.  A person could also have their memories infiltrate their dreams to the point that the seeming distinction--which is only one on the level of perception as far as epistemology goes--vanishes between waking life with its sudden influx of memories and dreams with their likely focus on mostly the contents of the dream.

To dream requires consciousness and to perceive anything through the senses requires consciousness.  Mental imagery and sensory imagery (visual perceptions) are epistemologically indistinguishable from the mere experience of each.  The immaterial nature of consciousness and its dreams and the physical substance that a material world must have are keys to realizing how to prove one is dreaming or awake.  Of course, without the necessities and possibilities dictated by reason, none of this would be true or knowable, so it is not from thought alone that one can tell the metaphysical difference between a dream and an experience with the senses in the external world.  The non-rationalist who thinks they can "just know" they are awake with ease until they have discovered everything from logical axioms all the way up to these other logical facts is delusional, as sane as they might feel or think they must be.

A Kind Of Non-Theological Hell: Mother And The Null

It does not logically follow that an afterlife, if one exists--and many different kinds of afterlives do not contradict logical axioms/truths, including the Christian afterlife which actually has genuine evidence in its favor--is not wildly different for various individuals in a sense beyond the exact experience or placement in a heaven or hell differing. Some people might even go to an afterlife while others will only cease to mentally exist altogether.  Some might go to drastically different dimensions than others: as foreign to typical ideas about the afterlife as this is, things like this are absolutely logically possible because they do not contradict axioms or any other necessary truth stemming from them.

It is also possible, as unlikely as it seems, that an inescapable, non-theological hell awaits all people, with the beings inside of it suffering without relief or end.  There is strong evidence to the contrary and no evidence even suggesting that this logical possibility is true, but it remains possible.  In the same world as Castle Rock and Jerusalem's Lot, Stephen King's novel Revival provides a crushing but at least partly illusory or misunderstood glimpse into the afterlife of the Null, the dimension that is presided over by a supernatural being with an enormous, seemingly spider-like body called Mother.  This fate is supposed to have nothing to do with justice or punishment rather than the pointless, extreme cruelty of cosmic horror entities.

The human protagonist (Jamie Morton) and antagonist (Charles Jacobs) are shown the Null when they attempt to resurrect a dead woman to ask her what the afterlife is like.  When her body becomes a vessel for what appears to be Mother, an entity hinted at throughout the story, they see a massive line of people.  Their naked bodies are herded by ant-like creatures and are attacked if they fall in their distress.  Babies, teenagers, and people of other ages are there in the Null, forced onward by their tormentors.  Just as the humans are under the yoke of the ant monsters, the ants seem to serve Mother and perhaps other eldritch beings more powerful than themselves under the strange, intense lights emanating from above a sky described as paper-like and torn in some areas.

Jamie assumes that all people are destined for this place upon death, though that is never actually even said by Mother.  He simply sees a massive amount of people and believes this to be true.  He also thinks of the Lovecraftian creatures as all-powerful after only seeing the Null for a few moments, but depending on what is meant, he is in error here again, as not even Mother or God could do that which is logically impossible.  Limitless power to do every desired thing which is logically impossible is as close as she could get.  Jamie also considers whether the humans are eventually eaten by Mother, fed to her by the ant-creatures, only for him to dwell on how consumption by eldritch beings might not end the suffering by killing someone forever.

There is the possibility, both on a purely logical level and in relation to other Stephen King novels, that the sights of the Null were only an illusion created by Mother to terrify Jamie and Charles, similar to how Pennywise can manipulate the sensory perceptions of his victims.  Mother and It both have spider-esque physical forms, and It has already been shown to be an emotional vampire of sorts that gains from the terror of its victims.  Unless Revival takes place in a separate world or entire universe/multiverse from King's other works, it would contradict the afterlife of The Shining, Doctor Sleep, or The Outsider, for example, if seeing Mother and the Null was the inevitable fate of every person.  In each of these other works, deceased humans become spirits that can manifest to and communicate with the living.  At most, it would seem that the people healed in Revival by the "secret electricity" utilized by Charles are metaphysically tied to the Null since this secret electricity feeds into an energy that manifests there.

There are no hints of a non-theological hell in those other stories, much less a universal and eternal one, yet the exact connection of Revival to King's grander multiverse is not made as clear as it could be in the text itself.  What Mother and the Null accomplish despite how they do not have power over all humans in this (hopefully!) fictional universe is that they exemplify the very unconventional logical possibility of a non-theological hell.  There is by necessity an uncaused cause, but not only does its existence not necessitate the existence of an afterlife, but if there post-mortem consciousness, it might not be in a realm of bliss or one where moral justice is enforced with the eventual death of the wicked (Matthew 10:28).  Everything that is logically possible either is true or could have been true, and Revival intentionally or unintentionally touches upon one of the most horrific ramifications of this.

Game Review--Gravity Rush (PS Vita)

"Fear not--a good Creator never gives the worthy an impossible challenge."

--Gade the Creator, Gravity Rush

"The Nevi was only trying to protect the girl, but I destroyed it.  They were more than monsters.  I know that now."

--Kat, Gravity Rush

The strangeness of Gravity Rush as its various components come together is one of its strongest qualities.  While occasionally some of its elements are neither artistically nor thematically helpful, at its best, it has some of the most novel fighting and traversal mechanics in gaming, and this is a more philosophically direct game than many, even if it some characters say things about reality that are logically impossible--and thus they must by necessity be untrue even in the fictional game lore but misunderstood by the characters.  Brimming with style, uniqueness, and rather deep lore, Gravity Rush also integrates the special functions of the portable system it debuted on.

Production Values

The floating city of Hekseville and its adjacent dimensions and lands look great on the Vita's small screen.  This 2014 game has a very distinct art style that it maintains across its diverse landscapes, some of which are very colorful or otherwise visually grand (a section set against the backdrop of outer space being an example).  Comic-like illustrations and dialogue introduce certain events, and while the Vita could have handled full cinematics with voice acting in their place, in another sense, the miniature visual novels are right at home on a portable system.  The sound that is there, like Kat's attacks and the noises of the Nevi creatures, is executed well.  It just would have been more representative of the Vita's power as a handheld console if more of the game had voice acting.

Gameplay

A highly creative game that is odd by comparison to many Western games, Gravity Rush lets you soar upward or downard or in any direction you choose as long as the gravity meter has not depleted, and this gets used to traverse great distances, dodge enemy attacks, or launch attacks of your own as you build momentum and then slam into hostile creatures.  Kat's hair and scarf will still fall in the direction gravity would normally pull something even when she stands on a wall or is floating upside down--it can sometimes take a few moments to figure that out just by looking around.  The duration of Kat's gravity powers, their recharge rate, the power of her various but limited attacks, and more can be upgraded with gems obtained throughout the hub city of Hekseville and the individual missions.  Optional challenge missions grant additional gems, and since character upgrades make an enormous difference later in the game, it is in the player's best interest to at least attempt them.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

A girl named Kat wakes up forgetful of her past only to witness strange gravitational anomalies, find she has a tie to a mysterious cat that seems to give her powers of gravitational distortion, and encounter another young girl with an animal, this time a raven, who has has her own power to manipulate gravity.  Kat soon meets a man who insists he is the Creator and tells Kat of another world where people were pulled out and placed in the floating city of Hekseville.  The enigmas of this world are many.  A bus full of children has allegedly vanished without a trace.  Monstrous creatures called the Nevi appear in Hekseville.  There is also the other girl who can bend gravity to her will, and she regards Kat as a threat.  Slowly, the intertwined nature of many strange occurrences come to light.

Intellectual Content

Gravity Rush directly selves into the pseudo-theistic and more abstract metaphysical nature of its lore, with one thing it does not address being the fact that the laws of nature like gravity could have been different and even now could change at any moment, without warning or evidence that would suggest this is coming.  Unlike the necessary truths of logic, like logical axioms, all behaviors of matter and the very existence of a material world are not fixed by necessity; the former could change to any other logically possible set of scientific laws and the latter could blink out of existence because it is not logically necessary that it continues existing.  What Gravity Rush does tackle is the idea of a being dreaming a universe into existence.  Because the game states all of its characters except the dreamer are figments of someone's imagination, it falls into the blunder of treating consciousnesses as existing within another consciousness, an impossibility: either a dream figment at most only seems to be conscious but is not, or one consciousness sustains another mind that is still metaphysically distinct from it (as is the case with logically possible forms of basic theism).

This issue starts to develop as a theme somewhat early in the game when a man Kat helps wonders if none of Hekseville is real and if the people are just figments of someone else's imagination, but he has it backwards.  If anything, the city and the other people could be figments of his imagination if he really is conscious, for a conscious being cannot not exist as a mind as long as it perceives anything at all, meaning one's conscious mind (and the laws of logic that make consciousness and certainty and truth possible in the first place) cannot be an illusion.  Consciousness cannot be illusory, even if many perceptions of the external world, memories of events, moral emotions, aesthetic perceptions, and so on do not actually correspond with external existents like the material world or real moral obligation.  It is other minds that would be epistemologically uncertain or metaphysically nonexistent and not his own if he has one.  Soon, though, Kat meets someone named Gade who claims "I am the Creator of this world," only to later be told by the possessed body of a young girl named Cyanae that Cyanae is the Creator: "This world is a dream.  Cyanae's dream.  You and everything in it are just crystallized figments of her imagination."  As aforementioned, since logical impossibilities cannot even be portrayed or hypothetically possible due to being false by necessity, this is a case of characters in a story simply saying things that cannot be true when the real nature of reality must be different than what they claim.

Conclusion

Gravity Rush is a highly original game that at least minimally takes advantage of the Vita's touch screen and motion sensors.  A bizarre story, the sheer uniqueness of gravity-based combat mechanics, and the increasingly philosophical nature of the lore all work together to make Gravity Rush a fine example of what can be made when developers are open to more unconventional ideas about creating a game.  There is plenty for a sequel, which it eventually received, to expand upon, including providing more combat options and offering more side quests, but this is a game like few others, and not in a negative way.  More games like this could have helped salvage the Vita's struggling sales and reputation back when it was still being produced.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  Non-graphic kicks and other attacks are exchanged between Kat and her Nevi enemies.

The Right To Life

Conservatives talk at length about the right to life, albeit mostly in the strict context of discussing abortion.  Though they can be rather content to hypocritically encourage or tolerate things like prison murders or unjust wars (capital punishment, where it is just, does not violate a right to life because it is deserved wherever it is just), in some cases, the conservative worldview does happen to be opposed to taking the life of others on a whim or otherwise outside of select circumstances, such as self-defense or deserved capital punishment--not that even Christian conservatives understand the scope and limited methods of Biblical capital punishment.  Even as they pay lip service the idea of a right to life, however, they are the most prone of all to actively opposing any efforts to make sure that people are do not have simplified access to things that enable them to survive or have a more comfortable life.

Everything from better, more financially accessible healthcare to non-predatory housing to livable compensation--pay that can support a lone working person where they live without them having to work more than one full-time job--is outright attacked by the vast majority of conservatives one might encounter, online or in person.  One one hand, they hyper-fixate on the ramifications if humans have a right to life in certain situations, like those pertaining to the unborn (which is valid if murder is indeed immoral).  On the other hand, even Christian conservatives, who by default have little to no genuinely Biblical components in their worldview, will savagely fight any changes to the cultural status quo that would save, prolong, or improve the lives of humanity in general.

When it comes to things like the aforementioned economic accessibility of fundamental healthcare, things that are not in themselves luxuries which merely enhance the quality of life, there is no less staunch an opposition in conservatives.  Here, they overlook something about the core nature of a right to life, which they tend to speak of far more often than their inversely irrational counterparts who are liberals.  If people have a right to life, they have a right to the things which sustain life, things like shelter, food, water, and at least lifesaving medical resources.  Having a right to something but not the things that allow for it is logically impossible.  What does not logically follow is that the government should meet all of these needs for free or that the government should involve itself in plenty such things at all, but it is inescapably hypocritical to want people to live without actually wanting them to have the things they need to live, like water or food.

Yes, it is fallacious for liberals to think that the government should provide all of these things to all people, much less for free.  Someone has to put work or financial resources into these things, so they could only be free for specific recipients anyway and not totally free in an ultimate sense.  There is also far more to removing obstacles to these things than involving the government, and how someone feels about any of this, conservative or liberal, is epistemologically and metaphysically invalid.  It is still a deep inconsistency in conservative philosophy for something like life to be regarded as good--and really just assumed to be good because of conscience or tradition, as conservatives are by no means rationalists--while the things that contribute to it are demonized.  If human life has value, as is true on the Christian worldview, then things like food or water are not more valuable than humans despite human life hinging on them, as they would only have significance because of their relationship to humans (and lesser creatures).  They would still be far more important than Christian conservatives pretend.

The Knowledge Available To All

If books, the internet, and language itself had never been invented, and if there were no other people to talk to and no words to use in one's thoughts, it would not be the case that people have no way of thinking about philosophical issues or truths.  Every thought and every experience already depends on logical axioms for its very possibility, and thus any thought or experience could lead to someone finally choosing to discover and understand the abstract logical truths that dictate all else.  There is no such thing as a person who could not think about philosophical matters, who could not come to the inherent truth of logical axioms and the enormous, many ramifications of this, or who would be doomed to remain trapped in assumptions or ignorance.  Even when experiences with discussion or reading bring a given issue or abstract truth to someone's mind, there are only two possibilities.  Either what was brought to their mind is a logical or introspective fact that can be known independent of all else with absolute certainty, for it is at the foundation of other truths and experiences, or it is something that, while logic still governs it, a person would have no reason to think of without prompting in the first place.  Scientific concepts fall into the latter category; logical axioms, self-awareness of one's mind, and various logical truths about epistemology and metaphysics are in the former category.

Someone born without sensory capacities many able-bodied people take for granted could still have mental experiences, and their very existence and thoughts would inevitably still hinge on logical axioms, which they could identify, perfectly understand, and recognize as the only possible core of all things.  From there, he or she could discover that there are other strictly logical truths which follow from the much smaller handful of self-evident logical axioms, the logical truths which are what even other logical truths stand on.  This person, unable to speak or hear or see or even physically feel, would neither have the general sensory perceptions that might or might not correspond with physical stimuli nor the physical sensations that can prove the existence of basic matter.  An entire avenue of perception in its various forms would be cut off from him or her, yet they would still be relying on the laws of logic and could understand them in full, which could bring them to the point of understanding that the existence of their consciousness, like the truths of axioms, could not be an illusion.  At least axioms and their own mind could still be known without absolute certainty because these things cannot be false.  The former would also underpin an enormous number of other logical truths they could discover even as the latter contains emotions, a will, desires, and the inward gaze that can all be known and savored in their entirety.

The same would be true of a hypothetical being that was not omniscient and yet still only existed as a consciousness without even illusory sensory experiences: it would be able to recognize the logical truths that do not depend on its own existence, awareness, or approval for their own existence and veracity, as well as its own consciousness and its contents.  It would not automatically have any words assigned to any logical truths, aspects of consciousness, or unverifiable and unfalsifiable concepts.  There would not be any other beings it perceives which it could have a conversation with, for it has no senses and no telepathic link to whatever other minds might exist.  It would not even be able to let silent social interactions or visual perceptions prompt any of its thoughts.  All it would have access to is reason and introspection.  In actuality, the most foundational epistemological and metaphysical truths would still be fully knowable.  It could still realize that its perceptions and preferences mean nothing except that its thoughts and preferences exist; it could still realize that logic cannot be or have been false and even the more precise fact that logical truths exist in the absence of all other things, including the mind of this hypothetical unembodied creature.

However, people with sensory perceptions and social experiences and familiarity with established languages still have access to all of these truths and to the absolute certainty found in them.  Beyond this, they have the same ability to discover, rediscover, or focus on logical truths without relying on prompting from other people, from sensory experiences of any kind, or from language contrived by others or by themselves.  All humans have the capacity to at least know the nature of the logical axioms and conscious thoughts they already rely on whether or not they have realized this!  With or without sensory experiences in all of their forms, with or without physical media like books or digital resources on the internet, and with or without words assigned to concepts, a person can indeed still know quite a bit.  The most important truths are still accessible to all, including the most foundational parts of epistemology and their more precise metaphysical counterparts such as the necessary existence of logic in the absence of all things and the immateriality of consciousness.  No one is irrational for happening to have these discoveries prompted by experiences, but strictly logical truths and introspective states do not require this at all.  It would even be irrational to believe things knowable through reason alone because a person or written work makes a claim, rather than because it is true by necessity and directly knowable through reason, just as it would be irrational to believe the ideas of any book or person if there is hearsay, induction, or any other kind of assumption being promoted.

Leaving A Job

Leaving a job can be terrifying for some and a minor inconvenience for others.  A worker with a high level of leverage in switching jobs or falling back on alternative life plans has little to fear in quitting even a job they just obtained, but a worker with little to no workforce experience or a great deal of uncertainty about their future (almost everything about the future is philosophically uncertain, but I mean in the sense of not having a fairly secure course of action in mind.  As for when leaving a job is a minor inconvenience, other than for workers in a very fortunate situation, for many employers, having a worker leave with or withotu notice is not necessarily the devastating blow that conservatives love to exaggerate it as.  A rational employer would understand multiple legitimate reasons why a worker might leave even if the departure is an inconvenience for them.  Preference is irrelevant.

Misleading or incomplete job information, an oppressive work environment, a better opportunity, or even a simple change of willingness to work in general or to work that job in particular are all entirely valid reasons to quit a job--no matter how recently or long ago that job was accepted.  Merely realizing that the job is not a good emotional fit justifies leaving a job in itself, at least on the Christian worldview, where it is Biblically true that there is no obligation that contradicts this (Deuteronomy 4:2).  Plenty of people might panic at the thought of either complying with or disregarding the laws of American federal or state governments, and conservatives selectively fall into the latter category.  They tend to believe that employees somehow unjustly injure businesses by quitting their jobs or changing their mind about non-obligatory decisions, and on every level, this position is false--they have nothing to stand on epistemologically, there is no logical necessity in the opposite being true, and the Bible, as was just described, does not command anything that contradicts this.

I am not speaking of "at will" employment when I say that that there is nothing demonstrably evil or shortsighted by default about leaving a job suddenly, with or without notice, for the laws of a country are epistemologically irrelevant to if this is morally acceptable or philosophically valid behavior, and legal customs are also irrelevant to whether it is true that these things are permissible.  It is logically true that there is neither logical proof demonstrating nor fallible evidences suggesting that there is anything oppressive or otherwise evil about just leaving a job on a whim, given that one's motivations are not hypocritical, selfish, counterproductive, or irrational in some other way.  Moreover, it is demonstrably true that it does not logically follow from abruptly quitting a job, even the very day of the hiring, because of the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

No one would believe the contrary of this because of reason, for even if it was true, they could not possibly prove it to themselves since it would not be true by logical necessity except in light of factors human limitations prevent people from knowing.  Some people might still believe the contrary is true because of emotional attachment to ideas exalting the workplace (especially if they benefit if those ideas are true or even just treated as if they are true) or because of societal pressures from years of employees being tossed aside without realizing they are not being cruel in leaving a job even if they were only just hired.  Ironically, the conservatives who idiotically worship arbitrary human laws are likely to object to this even when it the at will resignation of an employee is legally allowed!  Like anyone who actually believes that arbitrary social constructs are valid, conservatives often only selectively approve of laws as they are situationally beneficial to them.

Beyond this, it is not as if suddenly leaving a strong company that is in all probability able to easily find a replacement worker is a major blow to them, and it is not as if all workers who leave a company quickly--either with short notice (giving a notice of two weeks is only a random tradition) or by leaving very soon after getting accepted for a job--are maliciously acting against their employers.  Employees and employers can change their course without exploiting each other in any way or in any direction.  However, it can be much easier for a company to replace a worker than it is for a worker to find a new job that pays more than the bare legal minimum, so it is in a worker's best interests to stay with or leave companies as most benefits them, given that they are not engaging in any sort of injustice along the way.  Conservatives will just loudly protest this despite having absolutely nothing to stand on but assumptions and preferences, the very things they pretend believing in conservatism does not rely on!

The Nervous Systems Of Animals

Consciousness is so often ignored as a metaphysical existent despite its basic existence being one of the only self-evident things there is.  When it is not overlooked, it is more likely to be mistaken for an extension of the material brain and broader nervous system than recognized as an immaterial thing that might create matter or that is created by matter, with neither possibility being verifiable, unlike the fact that consciousness is intangible and logically distinct from the body.  Animals that share nervous systems comparable or somewhat analogous with those of humans are abundant (not that visual sensory perceptions that observe animals prove anything beyond that the sensory perceptions are there), and yet there are reported organisms with nervous systems quite different from our own.  Even apart from the logical necessities and possibilities that render empirical observation of animals unnecessary to realize some of these ramifications, there are plenty of animals that serve as counterexamples against prevailing myths about consciousness and neuroscience, including the myth that a particular kind of nervous system is intrinsically necessary for creatures to act as if they have minds--or to have a mind, though no minds besides one's own can be proven to exist.

Not even all animals have nervous systems resembling the human brain, however, and some of them have no brain at all.  Octopi have nine brains, each of their eight arms equipped with enough neurons to act as a brain alongside the central brain located in the head structure.  Around two thirds of the total number of neurons are found not in the head's brain, but in the arms of the octopus.  Jellyfish have neurons distributed all over their bodies without a central brain these nerve cells report to.  Other underwater creatures, like starfishes, likewise have no brain, sharing only looser neurological similarities to humans and land-based animals.  Sea sponges are supposed to have no neurons at all!  Even on the level of empirical observation, which is very obviously not the core of metaphysics or epistemology (logic, consciousness, and more abstract things such as these are), animals do not at all serve as evidence for the idea that all mind-body composites on Earth would have wholly comparable nervous systems or neurons to begin with.  These aforementioned creatures still seem to be conscious, not that their actual consciousness can be proven, and yet on the physical level, their nervous systems are rather alien to ours.

If octopi and jellyfish have their own actual consciousnesses--which is something that, for other humans, for animals, or for AI, could never be determined from perceptions of bodily movements or speech or anything externally observable--then they are metaphysically unique among most terrestrial, biological creatures, having an immaterial consciousness as many other beings appear to and yet not having conventional nervous systems correlate to their minds.  It is primarily creatures that live in oceans which have these kinds of alternate neurological systems, systems that are very foreign to that of humans, yet their distinctiveness can remind people of a logical truth that could already be realized apart from any examples: there is nothing logically necessary about having a nervous system composed of a brain, spinal cord, and billions of corresponding nerve cells in order to be a conscious being.  Then there is of course the easily demonstrable truth that consciousness is not a physical thing no matter its exact metaphysical origin, as in whether or not matter creates or sustains its existence.

Beyond this, there is nothing logically necessary about having a nervous system at all in order to have nonphysical consciousness, not that this means that neurological structures/events and the existence of human consciousness and its contents do not correspond to each other.  It only means that there is no contradiction and thus no impossibility in consciousness existing independent of a nervous system like ours, a nervous system whatsoever, or a body as a whole.  Empirically, perhaps more species will even be discovered one day in the depths of Earth's oceans or from a planet other than our own, having bodily/neurological phenomena that does not match their seeming mental states in the same way that ours would; there is nothing impossible about this because only contradictions like logical axioms not being true or something existing and not existing at the same time are inherently impossible (in a secondary sense, something might be impossible in light of contingent factors like the laws of physics, but the fact remains that these laws of physics and any other factor besides logical necessity could have been different than it is).

Other than the uncaused cause, there is no demonstrable example of such a being existing as a mind without a body, though examples of something are not necessary to know it is true or possible wherever it is only a matter of logical necessity or possibility--what all things ultimately hinge upon in the first place.  As far as terrestrial creatures go, it is just already the case that the nervous systems found in various organisms conflict with false ideas about consciousness, such as the the idea that it is only logically possible for seeming consciousness to exist in correspondence with a specific kind of nervous system.  Scientific observation is utterly irrelevant when it comes to actually proving if animal consciousness exists at all, as well as if other humans even have minds, but either way, it is not logically necessary for consciousness to be metaphysically integrated with humanoid nervous systems, even if they were tied in certain creatures to neurological structures (even then, in a contingent sense, for there is no contradiction in consciousness not having a body at all).  It is also true that animals like octopi, if they have their own consciousnesses, could have minds that are like ours far more than their differing bodily structures and functions imply.  One just could not know.

Progressive Christianity

Political progressivism, at least in 21st century America, is liberalism, a philosophy with the political application of moving away from the status quo towards what is intended to be a just and empowering society for all of its members, though there are still groups that many liberals predictably try to exclude from this benevolence.  Progressive Christianity is the phrase for Christian ideas embraced in a philosophical context of (partial or full) progressivism, with the adjective progressive getting used in a derogatory way by many evangelicals.  Political liberalism is unbiblical in part and, more foundationally, irrationalistic in some of its tenets, yet the people who use this phrase correctly or incorrectly are among the most likely to not see how progressive Biblical ethics is when it comes to criminal justice, social justice, and even the treatment of non-human beings.

I am of course not talking about the often incomplete, vague moral teachings of the New Testament--incomplete and vague apart from Mosaic Law, that is.  The part of the Bible most misunderstood, feared, and hated by emotionalists inside and outside of the church is by far the most progressive of everything in the entire book, though not always progressive in the sense of current American liberalism.  Where both conservatives and liberals hypocritically fail to acknowledge the humanity of all people--each of them generally discriminating against people in thought or deed on the basis of gender, race, class, and age--Mosaic Law directly rejects all such forms of discrimination.  Where plenty of both conservatives and liberals are content to support things like the murder or sexual assault of people they dislike, Mosaic Law condemns these actions in all their manifestations.

There are, however, some ways where the liberal political philosophy of contemporary America is closer to Christian moral prescriptions, such as the repeated commands to avoid overlooking the poor.  There are also many cases where liberalism wildly diverges from it, including Mosaic Law's condemnation of discrimination in favor of either the poor or the rich (Exodus 23:2-3, 6), something true of political conservatism as manifested in modern America as well.  Beyond this, Mosaic Law prohibits everything from punishing one gender more harshly for the same offenses or punishing crimes more harshly based on the gender of the victim or perpetrator (Exodus 21:26-27, for example) to treating foreigners as inferior for their nationality (Exodus 22:21).

The moral philosophy of the Bible is very distinctly progressive compared to the norms of literally every civilization in the historical record, avoiding the misandry, misogyny, racism, classism, neglect of the disabled, and more that are so common even in cultures that want to pretend they are innocent of these things.  Even the "progressive" forms of legal punishment Western culture has normalized out of tradition or conscience (two objectively meaningless, morally irrelevant factors) like prison are really used as dehumanizing breeding grounds for sexual abuse or economic exploitation.  In contrast, Mosaic Law does prescribe physical punishment, but this is limited to very specific kinds of torture or execution with very strict moral restrictions on how to use every permitted kind of corporal punishment.

Every category of involuntary or irrelevant factors (including sexual orientation, as the Bible only opposes homosexual behaviors and not the feelings themselves) regarding people is protected, affirmed, and rightfully treated as having nothing to do with human value under Christian theonomy, with theonomy being the metaphysical/epistemological moral framework of Christianity.  Even animals and the environment itself, lesser reflections of God but still highly important in their own ways, are clearly ascribed moral significance in the Torah, the part of the Bible idiotically misunderstood and mistaken as having an unjust set of moral commands.  The enormous irrationality of looking to subjective conscience or arbitrary traditions aside, Mosaic Law is deeply progressive no matter what its opponents pretend, even in many ways that overlap with modern political/philosophical attitudes.

"Not Dead But Asleep"

Just after a woman was healed of her relentless bleeding by touching the clothing of Jesus, he is told that the daughter of Jairus, the synagogue ruler, has died (Mark 5:35-36).  He visits the girl's house along with Peter, James, and John, insisting to the laughter of onlookers that "'The child is not dead but asleep'" (Mark 5:39).  Jesus then privately restores the girl of 12 years of age to life.  He says to her, "'Little girl, I say to you, get up!'" (5:41), and she awakens from the "sleep" of death.  Lazarus of John 11:11-13 is also said to be asleep after he dies prior to his own resurrection by Jesus. 

Jesus resurrects multiple people before his own death--and none of them mention a hellish or blissful experience after they died.  While the Bible teaches that there is a hell (Matthew 10:28) and a heaven, which have very different natures and purposes than many Christians have thought throughout history, it also teaches that the dead are asleep or nonexistent on the level of consciousness until their resurrection to eternal life or to judgment and eventual eternal death (Daniel 12:2, Revelation 20:11-15).  Jesus himself repeatedly refers to the dead he raises in the gospel accounts as asleep even though he clarifies at times that they really are dead.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 sees Paul also call dead Christians asleep in death, so, as if Job 3:1-19, Ecclesiastes 9:3-10, and Jesus were not already very clear that those who die are not conscious before God brings them back to bodily life at the general resurrections.  For clarification, Job 3 and Ecclesiastes 9 describe the immediate state after death as a total lack of perception.  It is not just that the Bible does not provide any details hinting at an elaborate process of torture or a foretaste of heaven before the final judgment, but it is also the case that the Bible very blatantly and repeatedly says that the dead are sleeping before resurrection.  They have no conscious experiences even if their minds still exist in the interim.

That Jesus tells the thief crucified beside him that he will see paradise that very day (Luke 23:43) and that Paul says that to biologically die is to be present with Christ (Philippians 1:22-24) do not contradict any of these other Biblical teachings.  For either a sleeping or nonexistent mind, there is no experience in between death and a later resurrection even if the latter came aeons later.  It would be perceived as if the mind in question was to blink and then be before God with its body.  This would also be true of the wicked or unsaved.  They would die, be raised in what might to them seem like an instantaneous transition, and be before God in bodies of their own, resurrected for the permanent second death because they are not given eternal life (John 3:16).

James 2:26 says that the body without the spirit is dead.  This is still true if the consciousness of a person literally dies until God revives them at the resurrection.  Billions of years could have passed, and they would experience nothing even if their mind existed in a dreamless sleep for that entire duration.  It is clear that there is no Biblical doctrine which actually contradicts the logical possibility of "soul sleep," as some call it, and that the Bible really does teach it just as it teaches that true justice for fallen humans is nonexistence (Ezekiel 18:4) and that heaven is not an immaterial place (Revelation 21-22). 

Enjoying One's Professional Work

Perceptions and preferences are subjective, and while they are experienced in a personal sense regardless of how different they are from person to person, they can vary to a great extent between individuals.  Preferences do not determine or reveal truth; the necessary laws of logic do.  Nonetheless, without believing assumptions or errors, someone can find pleasure in fulfilling certain desires.  While some people cannot relate to it whatsoever or do not experience it very strongly, it is logically possible for someone to actively enjoy their professional work for its corresponding sense of personal empowerment, its impact on others (this will greatly depend on what kind of job it is), or even its way of keeping them busy when boredom might otherwise strike.

Having a preference is not irrational or sinful.  What one believes and prioritizes and how one lives decide that, no matter how a person feels about their alignment with reality.  If someone enjoys their professional labor, there is nothing problematic about this, except if their work inherently involves them doing something evil, whatever it might be.  They need to realize that other people are not in error for despising how they need to labor to remain part of established society, and those who hate how they have to professionally work need to realize that those who enjoy it are not necessarily pretending like everyone is obligated to share their joy.  It is a subjective attitude that could be held to independent of someone's worldview or life experiences.

Those who might be frustrated merely with anyone's enjoyment of even morally permissible labor, if resentment over exploitation is at its root, also need to realize another truth.  To enjoy one's professional work is not to ignore, support, or partake in the irrationality and injustices that are woven into many industries and companies in America or elsewhere.  If one can secure and keep a job that provides livable compensation and an at minimum neutral work environment, then one is not tolerating abuse in order to pursue a passion, although passion can lead someone to remain in a harmful corporate setting out of appreciation for something else about their role.  If one derives genuine pleasure from expending effort or considering the results of this labor, all without holding to fallacies and contradictions, then one is not naive about any of this no matter how fierce the excitement is.

Delight in genuine productivity in a workplace context could still be taken advantage of by employers who only care about how people can benefit them.  Acting as if they encourage or nurture passion in their employees, they are ultimately only interested in ways they can use the excitement and talent of others for their own financial and social ends.  Working out of love for a job does not have to mean working under a tyrant who will exploit whoever he or she can, but it is an unfortunate possibility that this love can be welcomed under the facade of promoting the empowerment of workers or the betterment of consumers.  No strength of feeling for professional accomplishments or competency needs to blind someone to this.

The Importance Of Recognizing Unimportance

Importance in an amoral or moral sense has nothing to do with whatever brings about a pragmatic end or appeals to subjective delight.  If someone was delighted with cooking or clothing or all sorts of phenomena in the natural world, and yet he or she did not recognize or how to logical axioms and other related truths, then they have neglected and betrayed reality.  They have focused on lesser or perhaps even meaningless things instead of looking to that which cannot be anything other than intrinsically significant.  Even in the hypothetical absence of moral value, there are truths and other existents that are important, for they could not have been any other way or pertain to the most central aspects of reality.

It is thus important for the sake of knowing reality as dictated and revealed by the laws of logic to realize the importance of recognizing unimportance.  A truth which is utterly foundational as an intrinsic logical necessity, as in logical axioms, is of course far more important than anything else regardless of whether objective moral values even exist or not; this is not about nihilism, but about sheer, inherent logical truth (if anything else at all is important, so is logic, without which nothing could be true or even possible).  The issue of whether values exist, however, is also of incredible significance in its ramifications, with either there being no kind of intention or behavior that one should pursue or there being obligations one should uphold no matter the personal cost.

Whether a certain material glows in the dark or whether a person has the free time to experiment with cooking or gardening is of obvious triviality compared to these other things, and compared to many other truths and issues as well.  No one is irrational to subjectively enjoy these things, dwell on them, or live out that appreciation outwardly.  They would be irrational to think that such pursuits or aspects of reality (in this case, unverifiable parts of a perceived physical world) in any way rival the sheer amoral or moral significance of things like the laws of logic, the uncaused cause, morality, and absolute certainty wherever it can be found regarding the metaphysics of and beyond mere perception.  At best, they are secondary or tertiary or even more removed from what is most significant even as they can be deeply savored in another sense.

It might be personally fascinating that grass appears to be green and that the ocean appears to be blue.  A person might be enamored with genuinely practical or secondary aspects of reality.  Because all things have their nature and very possibility dictated by logical truths, even such matters are inevitably dependant on and connected to axioms and what follows from them.  They must be consistent with logical axioms and all other necessary truths in order to even exist, but they have none of the uttermost centrality, abstract depth, or moral value of other aforementioned parts of reality.  Practicality for the sake of practicality and almost everything about how the natural world of my sensory perceptions behaves are objectively minor or meaningless, and there are things that tower above these as neither minor nor insignificant with or without moral values to make them good.