Posts Tagged ‘Emotional Logic’

EMOTION PLANS LOGIC. Want No More Fakery? Tell the Truth! Hurt the Feelings of Fakers!

January 11, 2019

Emotional logic builds geometrical logic. This is a neurological fact. And yes, there are alternative facts, all over, because there are incomplete logics, logic with incomplete universes, all over. Any logic depends upon a universe of facts. Not all universes of facts are complete, far from it. It happens even in physics. Somehow, much vaunted modern physics is missing 95% of the mass-energy: it has no idea whatsoever what Dark Energy and Dark Matter could be made of: a case where major facts are still missing.

Philosophy , once it knows enough science, realizes that, although we don’t know all the details yet, clearly the topology of various substances bathing the brain, with their many dimensions, are what direct neuronal geometry… This, in particular explains why one cannot fight emotions with facts readily. That is like changing grass in the steppe with scissors.

If a child makes a mistake, one doesn’t respect the alternative computation. Instead, one says, pedagogically, that the computation is not correct. Children listen, because they respect teachers and parents (or used to…) So the emotional logic of respect, makes school possible.


Paradoxically, the problem then, maybe that one uses too much rationality to try to bend rationality, confronted to adults who have the wrong emotional logic.


Faced by a lethal religious fanatic, or a climate change denier (for example), the best method may not be to present them with facts and logics they can’t understand, or are unwilling to consider. Instead, one should probably appeal to their emotional logic.


How? One way is to call a cat a cat. Confronted to idiocy, it may be more pedagogical to say it as it is: idiotic. Instead, “Multiculturalism” (and Latour was part of it) insisted that complete idiocy and primitivism, were valuable alternate realities. Now Latour says there is just one reality. Right. However the philosophy known as “French Theory” said the opposite for 60 years….


Want no more fakery? Tell the truth! Hurt the feelings of fakers!

Patrice Ayme



Note 1: The preceding, that emotional machinery is the architect of the geometric logic, explains the observation of John Stuart Mill that ideas don’t work to change systems of mind readily (Discoverer of the Quantum Max Planck said the same a bit later, pointing out that physics progresses one funeral at a time, or something to this effect). Anyway here is Mill: in the Subjection of Women (1869; following an essay by a female feminist in 1851)

“The very words necessary to express the task I have undertaken, show how arduous it is. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the difficulty of the case must lie in the insufficiency or obscurity of the grounds of reason on which my conviction rests. The difficulty is that which exists in all cases in which there is a mass of feeling to be contended against. So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded its adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while the feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh intrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old. And there are so many causes tending to make the feelings connected with this subject the most intense and most deeply-rooted of all those which gather round and protect old institutions and customs, that we need not wonder to find them as yet less undermined and loosened than any of the rest by the progress of the great modern spiritual and social transition; nor suppose that the barbarisms to which men cling longest must be less barbarisms than those which they earlier shake off.”


Note 2: This was a comment sent to, and published by, the New York Times regarding “Why Fighting Fake News With the Facts Might Not Be Enough” by Jennifer Szalai. I give an extensive quote below, not because she is such a genius… but because the context she provides unwittingly is telling… Latour, by the way, is from a top plutocratic wine family, wealthy for generations… So his (not really “his”, just the latest parroting) declaration that massive uncontrolled immigration to the Europe is justified, just as a tsunami is justified, because waves come and go, and come back again… is a red herring… Something to look at… while doesn’t look at how Latour and his class became wealthy, the old fashion way, inheriting it…
Jan. 9, 2019

“Alternative facts”: The term manages to be tedious, ridiculous and perilous at once — a real sign of the times. For anyone who doesn’t remember, Kellyanne Conway introduced it in early 2017… serenely chiding an exasperated Chuck Todd for being “overly dramatic” as he repeatedly tried to get her to concede that lying to the American public was bad.

Her phrasing may have been new, but Conway was taking part in what has apparently become a conservative tradition — performing a skepticism so extreme that it makes the ancient Greek skeptics look like babes in the woods. Recall a high-ranking aide in the Bush administration needling a journalist for belonging to “the reality-based community.” A respect for facts, the aide suggested, was ultimately for suckers: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

You might think this kind of postmodernism would appeal to the French anthropologist and philosopher Bruno Latour, who has spent a career studying how knowledge is socially constructed. You would be wrong. Such pretensions to reality-creating grandeur, Latour suggests, amount to little more than a vulgar, self-defeating cynicism.

In “Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime,” Latour argues that climate change is forcing all of us to confront truths that seem hard to reconcile but turn out to be two sides of the same thing: 1) reality exists, whether we like it or not; and 2) our attempts to apprehend it are contingent on our social context. Along with Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall’s “The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread,” Latour’s new book offers a way to think through the seemingly insurmountable impasse carved out by political polarization and fake news.

Latour calls for an entirely new way of understanding the world. He says he wrote “Down to Earth” with a “deliberate bluntness.” He vests a surprising hope in Europe, whose colonial past — or “crimes,” as he puts it — he depicts as inextricable from the migrations it tries to keep out. “Europe has invaded all peoples; all peoples are coming to Europe in their turn,” he writes. “Give and take. There is no way out of this.”

Latour also describes migration as the human embodiment of our “new climatic regime.” Under the old way of thinking, exploited peoples and places were ignored, silenced and stripped of agency; now migrants and the earth itself are both setting out “to recover what belongs to them.”

No doubt some readers will find this to be too much, too philosophical and too French. But maybe it takes a brilliantly mind-bending book like Latour’s to show that so much reality can’t be denied.

Ignore Moods, Ignore Minds.

January 4, 2019


It seems to me that some of Wittgenstein’s views on religion boil down to him trying to say: There is an emotional logic which accompanies “religion”, but it doesn’t reduce to geometric logic(Compare with Pascal, three centuries earlier: “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison n’a point”… Heart has its reasons, that reason does not have.)

One has to talk precisely, and with discernment: religious beliefs come in two different types: secular and superstitious.

Football is a religion for its fanatics, so is patriotism (doing like one’s fathers), so is the Republic (consider Republican Rome and the heroes who gave their lives for it)… Then there are beliefs like monarchism, or Confucianism, nearly a superstition. Then there are outright superstitions. Superstitions believe extraordinary things, which, as their label denotes, stand above (reality), like blind love for the god who wants to kill children, or the prophet who flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem, or the hummingbird god, etc.

So one should distinguish between superstition based religions and religions based on tying up together again (re-ligare)… without any superstitious element… call the latter secular religions.  

There is a huge difference, an unfathomable abyss, between superstitious religions and secular religions. The latter has a reference: the genus Homo. The former, superstition, refer to the inhuman: god. Superstition based religion asks to believe, all the same, in something unbelievable: it asks to commit to a faith in… irrationality. Once one has left irrationality at the door, one has committed the greatest fraud and sacrifice against human nature. Then everything else is permitted, such as killing the innocents. It’s no accident: that was the aim. Consider the Tangut empire, a Buddhist empire (destroyed by Genghis Khan). There the slightest fault was punished by death.

This is the main interest of superstitious religions for potentates: teaching the subjects to leave reason at the door, robbing them of their free will. In the Tangut empire, the top dogs had the right to have sex with all and any brides (Genghis Khan didn’t like that).

Wittgenstein seems to have suggested that logical expression in different groups can be connected to different emotions. For example “God is Great” means “the universe is great” for the followers of the Abrahamist cults. Indeed.

But Abrahamist emotions at their peak were much stronger and nefarious: when in full control, the Abrahamist cults killed dozens of millions or more, burned libraries, 99.9% of books, eradicated most science, terrorized populations and thinkers for many centuries, throwing civilization off its tracks.

For example in the Thirteenth Century 4 to 5 millions Cathars  got exterminated by the Papacy, in several countries, down to the last person. And all their books. The reason to mention the Cathars is that they were hyper pacifist, to the point of vegetarianism (some of them ate fish, though…) Cathars rejected all wealth and materialism. There were Cathars all the way to Constantinople, where the faith got established long before it was in France. There were female Cathar bishops (“parfaites”). Many were tortured, burned alive by the sexist Catholic male chauvinist pigs. (Cathars were “Christians”… but not Catholic, thus exterminable according to Roman emperor Theodosius’ decrees of 380 CE…)

Cathar Parfaite (a Cathar bishop) flogged prior to being burned alive. Thirteenth Century Catholic amusement. Catholics, who detested women from the start, hated the gender equality of the Cathars. The Cathar ,

The holocaust of the gentle Cathars by Catholicism illustrates perfectly the insane cruelty and power obsession of the Catholic sect.

So the Abrahamists  don’t just mean “the universe is great”, when they say “god is great“. They mean: “I have decided that my god is so great He gave me a reason to kill you, if you don’t submit to me”. One can see this logical emotion at work in Arabia and the Middle East, to this day. One saw this logical emotion at work in the Americas.

One of the conquistadores ordered the massacre of the nation west of the Aztecs, which was at always been at peace with Spain. He thoroughly explained his cynical usage of religion. He said, his true aim was not at all to impose “Christ”, but not to leave a free, strong, fully armed, technologically advanced, smart Native American state in Mexico. Religion was just a pretext, he shrugged, when he wrote his justifications in his old age.

Believing in nonsensical stuff fabricates neurohormones and a way to use the brain in common: it fabricates inhuman robots all programmed the same, subscribing to the defense of the organization (the “faith”).

Jesus rose from the grave” is not just fake news, it is a way to have similarly twisted brains in common. It is goose stepping in a common robotization of the mind, the most basic way to build a human community. It can be efficient. Hence the Catholic Church is the world’s oldest institution.

What Wittgenstein may have tried to say, is that there is emotional logic, and humanity crucially depends on it. Logic is not just all about the games languages play.

The evidence is strong: axons are the wormholes of the brain, carrying information far away and speedily. They incarnate geometrical logic. However they are built from neurohormonal topology… the emotional logic! The emotions, the moods!

One can ignore moods, but they rule minds.

Patrice Ayme



Note 1: the preceding was a comment on a murky essay in Aeon: “Wittgenstein and religion In the case atheists vs religious belief, Ludwig Wittgenstein is called to the stand. Whose side does his testimony serve?” The title says it all: Wittgenstein was full of mumbo-jumbo. However, his family was one of the top plutocratic families in Austria-Hungary, so he was like god to English plutocrats, Bertrand Russell and his ilk. And, generally, in the plutophile Anglosphere, Wittgenstein and his rocky wit still has divine status….


Note 2: The essay made a big deal of an old Christian quandary: trying to deny the existence of god by pointing at evil is only a problem if one believes that “god” is a good god. But assuredly, the god of the old testament is worse than the worst human tyrants, so it’s both devil and the good lord. Building on this, Islam postulates that Satan and Jinns exist… apparently independently of Allah. In the Qur’an, Allah is asked why, and He replies: mind your own business, understanding this is beyond you, humans.

CAN’T MAKE LOVE? There Is ALWAYS WAR, Or Plain Old DANGER: WISDOM KNOWS MANY TRICKS; Humanity’s Dirtiest, Greatest Secret

December 16, 2018


[Future and necessary wisdom: fasten seat belts and read at your own risk…]

Humanity’s definition? Thinking better. That’s reflected in the name “Sapiens” (from sapere “to taste, have taste, be wise,”… there is no wisdom, or intelligence, without perception). It turns out that, to think better, one needs lots of neural connections (axons, dendrites), and those in turn grow from emotional topology, aka emotional logic.

So far, so good.

Thus, the greater the passions, the greater the ability to shake up the old connections, the old brain geometry, and build a new, better brain, that is more fitting to reality. Hence passions, strong emotions, help steer that pot known as the brain. That is why some think afresh while walking (it happens even to physicists; that idea that walking helps is so old, a philosophical school, the Peripatetic, founded by Aristotle, was built around it). That’s also hard sports, and more generally a dangerous life foster more brazen thinking. Advanced thinkers, throughout the ages, have tended to end badly. It’s not just because new, correct thinking messes up conventional brains made of concrete common wisdom. It’s also because advanced thinkers need the passions that danger provide with…    

Passions often invoked positively are “love”, “compassion”, “mercy”, “generosity”, etc Also positive, but often dangerous, controversial, “sex”, “curiosity”, the spirit of inquiry… And then there are passions viewed generally negatively, like “anger” (although found in Christ, Muhammad besides all revolutionaries worth the label)… Or, even more negative, “hatred” (often alleged by the eyes of others, those observing the beholder). And of course jealousy, greed, etc.

However… Let’s consider lions fighting, fangs and claws out. How do humans fight?

Lions Fighting, Woman Involved lurks behind (of course). Humans fight mostly with thoughts, though, not tooth and claw. So human fighting fosters more advanced human thinking…. Which is all very humanistic. Another serious twist on moronic conventional humanism… Talk about fight club! Brawling lions in a serious fight because one horny lion got interrupted during a steamy morning romp. The frisky lion and his mate were not happy at being disturbed during their raunchy session. The king of the jungle launched a brutal attack as he chased the intermeddler away before picking up where he left off. The fierce lions launched at each other during the ten minute scuffle, roaring aggressively as they fought it out over who gets the girl. [Photographer Johan Pieter Meiring, from Port Elizabeth, South Africa, captured the scene at Kruger National Parks…]

However, passions, emotions, plain neurohormonal, not to say chemical, agitation create new associations, new thoughts, because they, and potentially only them, entice the making of new connections (axons), or near-connections (dendrites). Although still science fiction at this point, it’s pretty sure neurohormonal gradients are implicated. That there is such a thing as a “good” neurohormones or a “bad” one is more than debatable: it’s probably the sort of “moral” judgement which don’t apply to chemistry. (What we now, all too often, have called) “Bad” neurohormones have enabled struggles to death in the past, and we are here, because our ancestors won them. We stand on the corpses of trillions of enemies, red in tooth and claw. To spite, or deny, this prehistoric holocaust, is to spite, or deny, ourselves.

Such a negationist attitude about ourselves insures we can’t understand anything important, looking forward.

Once a friend of mine, an emergency MD,  told me all this may all be true, but we have to forget it now, all this prehistoric way of thinking, as we are in a world too evolved for this embarrassing heritage of ours. What I know, instead is that there is no thinking, but prehistoric thinking. Sorry, folks, we, you can’t get out of ourselves. Maybe sad to some, but it’s a fact. Losing track of this sorry state of affairs brings mayhem… because then we, and history, forsake the drastic precautions which need to be taken! 

What I see, then, is a world so evolved it’s bringing its own demise, and not evolved enough to survive it.  And the major problem has been, as with many of my friends, all too often ex-friends, that they were not passionate enough to pay attention to the evil mechanisms at play (fortunately Trump Derangement Syndrome has extracted many a fake liberal out of his or her self-satisfied torpor).

And there comes the twist. Human beings have been evolutionarily selected as the best thinking machines (by the holocaust alluded to above). So the pressure to think better (that is more fitting to the world as it is) is extreme, overwhelming, the main driver of human psychology (and not reproduction as the naive believe, confusing humans and rabbits).

And how does one think better, that is, continually afresh?

With more passions.

So, right, populations where passions are allowed to flow, everything else being equal, will be more mentally creative.

But not just that.

Suppose the positive passions can’t be deployed (say no love object, everybody hates you, etc.; not far-fetched, that was pretty much the situation of the Jews in a sea of hateful Catholics, after Roman emperor Theodosius I decided to “punish” heretics, around 380 CE… and again, after the hiatus of 5 centuries of Frankish tolerance came to an end; countless minorities found themselves in that situation, most minorities so excluded and hated are not around anymore to speak about it; some barely cling by: the 2018 Peace Nobel was awarded to a Yazidi lady, after Islam Fundamentalists tried to kill them all in the last few years)

So suppose no love is forthcoming, nor could ever come. What’s the next best thing to steer the mental pot in one’s head? Hatred. 

Ridiculously, conventional “humanism”, not too human, has ignored this.

“Best” and “Worst” as moral categories are not logical categories, only truth determines the latter [Chad Gold Picture, thanks!]

Hence, don’t love them at your own risk. They may hate you back. Just because they want to satisfy that most primordial of human instinct, thinking.

And what if objects of passion are not readily available?

There is simple way out, coming to the rescue: danger. Danger itself. Danger should in little time brings passions back up, thus thinking afresh. Thereof the fascination of human beings with risk taking: it’s more than a thought adjuvant, it’s a thought creator (another uncomfortable fact for Conventional Wisdom and Conventional Humanism).

Verily, wisdom is the most complicated thing… Understanding how wisdom works is crucial to predicting the future, and optimizing it (because if the good doesn’t develop new, more powerful wisdom, the bad and the ugly will). I emote, thus I think creatively, hence I am a human being in full…

Patrice Ayme



Note 1: a professional philosopher, MP, told me haughtily that there was no such thing as “emotional logic”. He had read that in textbooks. Right. Creators of ideas don’t get them in textbooks.


Note 2: The Yellow Jackets in France have pivoted to fight for RICs (Referendums Initiative Citizens). As the two honest to goodness RIChest states, California and Suisse already have (not coincidentally: RIC make RICH). This is going to be a tremendous fight for improving civilization., mobilizing the collective debating power, hence intelligence humanity needs to survive. Officially six Yellow Jackets have died from their protest (latest was a French protester crushed by a Polish truck driver, who was arrested…) The Yellow Jackets need lots of war hormones, as they fight the huge forces of established evil, sucking at the teat of an exhausted planet…


Note 3: Yes, today, I went down a wind slab (although I was on the lookout to avoid them). I had missed the rocky ridge further east, which was safe (when I realized it I was too lazy and getting too cold to go back up; anyway when one is on the slab, it’s already too late). It was probably way too thin to be dangerous, but, still, I was distinctly not amused, and used special tricks I evolved in such cases (go straight down the anchor points, not where the snow is thickest). Doing a wind slab every few years: nothing like it to realize what the human brain is really for….


Note 4: Yes, hatred can be a very good thing: watch these millions of rabid Trump haters, foaming at the mouth. Five years ago, they couldn’t give a hoot about politics, and talking to them was like talking to fishes in aquariums. They aren’t yet intelligent, but, at least, less boring.

Now, propelled by their need to hate, they love (hating) Trump so much, politics is all they think they do. Let them hate away! They have now become politically receptive, however naive and ignorant they may still be… Passion is there at least, serious thinking may start, anytime…


Note 5: An example of new, more powerful wisdom, has been the idea of “not leaving our children with debts”, used massively to justify crazy European economic policies impoverishing, often to the point of famine, most Europeans. This is fake wisdom, but the bad and the ugly plutocrats of Europe have used it with a vengeance.


Note 6: The fascination with risk taking was no doubt a factor, when Nazi collaborator De Beauvoir & Nazi entertainer Sartre practiced “contingent relationships”, leaving a  trail of tears, depression (and official sanctions) behind them. Beauvoir ended at Radio Vichy… in 1944 from being dismissed of her job for seducing a child. 1944? That’s when the Nazis were sure to lose, so either Beauvoir was super arrogant from her relationships, or she enjoyed the obvious risk… If risk entices intellectualization, as I claim, this is explains it… Neurohormones: serious, so is sex…


December 26, 2014

Systems Of Moods Overwhelm Systems of Thought.


Are we born with “instincts” such as “care”, and the like? Or do we learn? I believe we learn (much of this being fast learning, and, mostly, subconscious). How does that work? Well, it would work from General Topology informing neurogenesis.

French philosopher Foucault baptized himself historian of systems of thought, when he got a professorship at the prestigious Collège de France in 1970. (Collège de France, the ultimate think institution, is five centuries old.)

I have gone one further, by introducing Systems of Moods. Why moods? Emotion Primes Reason. However, rarely does one emotion rule alone, but for ravenous hunger, abject terror, and other animalistic crazes. Instead, when we meditate ponderously, we are usually ruled by moods.

What’s a mood? It’s a cocktail of emotions. Systems of Moods are articulated with their own logic. Pascal discovered this, when he said “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison n’a pas”.

Why and how does the “heart” have its own logic? The answer has to do with where does logic come from? Logic is basically about arrows, implications: ’if A, then B’.

Where do these “thens”, these implications, come from? When one says:’I have a bad feeling about this’, one reasons out of a mood: the forest is suddenly too quiet, or a bird made an alarm sound… And suddenly all of one’s senses are in full alert.

Sets of moods will tend to topological relations. Instead of the one to one relations of logic or category theory. Topology, the logic of places, can bring to bear relationships that are much more general than ‘if A then B’. Relations such as: ’if A is close to B while C is close to D, when closer to A than B, then…’

This topo-logic can be embodied by neurohormones, neurotransmitters, and the neighborhoods they create (neighborhood is here used in the exact mathematical, General Topological sense). This no idle theory: it’s known that dendrites, and other neuronal structures, tend to grow in some directions, depending upon these chemicals. That means that the neurological relations of linear logic are built from the emotional and neurohormonal calculus.



I am going to use an example that arose from my adventures at a philosophy website. It’s rather complex, so let me give an abstract first: a philosophy professor drew a correct conclusion, yet the EXACT OPPOSITE conclusion is also valid. How is that possible? It is because, once some moods and emotions are rolled out, logic can go one way, or the other.

So much for the old hope that determinism and logic (in the conventional sense) rule all.

The example was extracted from Scientia Salon, a site run by university philosophers.

Philosophy professor Gregg Caruso considered polls on the behavior of USA citizens (that’s called “experimental philosophy”). Verdict? The relationship between believing in Free Will and believing that low lives dug their own fates, seems strong in the USA.

Gregg wrote: “juries — eager to preserve their belief in a just world — are already inclined to see the victim … as other than innocent… just one unfortunate example of the pernicious nature of belief in a just world… since, of course, if the world is just, then people must have brought these circumstances upon themselves. This blaming of victims (in defense of belief in a just world) has been established by numerous studies… the stronger the belief in a just world the greater the likelihood of blaming victims for their unfortunate fates.”

Any society rests on logic. The logic does not have to be all-embracing, it just has to be effective enough to support the social organization. Gregg’s general thesis is a good antidote to the present logic dominating the USA. Yet a USA social truth does not have to be a truth of human ethology.

And it is not, as egregious cases in non-USA based history and geography show.

The Nazis believed the less Free Will, the better: “society’s needs come before the individual’s needs” (Adolf Hitler). So did the followers of Stalin. So do, to a great extent some of the Muslim religions (so called “branches” of Islam). All believe(d) that individual Free Will had to be eradicated. Islam comes from aslama “he submitted”.

All believe(d) that the world could be made just through the application of strength, and the Will of God, the General Secretary, or the Guide.

Now, if I abstract the examples above (Stalinism, Nazism, Islamism), I can rephrase the grand conclusion of Gregg, into its complete contradiction. Below I just changed “Free Will” into “NON Free Will”:

…belief in NON free will, it was found, by studying the historical examples above, is associated with just world belief, authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and other. While these considerations do not prove belief in NON free will is mistaken, they do indicate that the putative pragmatic benefits of believing in NON free will and desert-based moral responsibility are bogus.

Gregg showed that in the USA to doubt Free Will would allow society to progress. History, in many other places show that rejecting Free Will led to horrible societies.

How come Gregg’s informed logic and concrete polls can be turned on its head? What is going on?

The answer is from the theory of systems of moods. The reason that the logic can be turned on its head is that what truly matters are the mood and subjacent emotions.

Example. The Nazis posed themselves as victims of an unjust world (big, bad, rich, hypocritical, Indian exterminating America; Versailles Treaty). Germans, all over, were oppressed minorities. Only surrendering Free Will would be bring back justice and stop the punition they were submitted to.

Strong emotions, bound by strong logic, make strong medicine. Yet, the logic is secondary. It could go whichever way. This is what the apparent truth of both Free Will Skepticism, and the truth of its exact opposite, my pernicious anti-thesis (just an observation, too), demonstrate.

Foucault suggested that power laid in discourses, more than anything else. I agree. Yet, beyond that, power lays in the raw emotions, and the moods they blossom into. The exact nature of the way they get organized is an afterthought.

Here is an explicit example: Christianism and love. Christ said that to love was the commanding commandment. Fine. However, read what he exactly said:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What’s the strongest emotion here? Jesus says it himself: loving obedience to “the Lord”. He puts it first. However, obedience is not the most prominent feature of human ethology (raw love probably is, next to the survival instinct). Thus the implied logic is the violence one has to exert to do something unnatural, obeying a so-called “Lord”.

In the end, Jesus’ primary emotion holds in just one word: “Lord”. Jesus is a plutophile: loving a “Lord” is the first law.

He, and others, can put whatever logic they want after that to embellish the ugliness, and comfort the horror. It does not really matter. The overall mood flows from there, one concept: “the Lord”. The rest is just rearranging the chairs on the sinking Titanic of Jesus’ make belief goodness.

Patrice Ayme’