A Man of Many Parts

 .

 

• REMEMBER •

  

 

 

McCOY: 

He's really not dead. 

As long as we remember him.

 

KIRK: 

'It's a far, far better thing I do 

than I have ever done before. 

...A far better resting place 

that I go to than I have ever known'.

 

CAROL: 

Is that a poem?

 

KIRK: 

No, no. 

 

Something Spock was

trying to tell me. 

 

On my birthday.

 

 

 Buffy blows up The Judge - Buffy the Vampire Slayer

 

 

WILLOW : 

Do you think he's dead?

 

BUFFY,

The Vampire Slayer : 

We can't be sure --

Pick up The Pieces and keep 'em seperate.

 

 

 

 

 ANGEL :

It's a Legend. Way before My Time. 

 

Of a demon brought forth to rid The Earth of The Plague of Humanity. 

To separate The Righteous from The Wicked... 

 

And burn The Righteous Down. 

 

They called him The Judge.

 

 

 GILES : 

The Judge? This is he?

 

 ANGEL :

Not all of him.

 

I'm still needing backstory here.

 

 GILES :

Erm... He...

He couldn't be killed, yes?

Erm... An army was sent against him. Most of them died.

But finally they were able to dismember him,

but... not kill him.

 

 ANGEL :

The pieces were scattered,

buried in every corner of The Earth.

 

 

So all these parts are being brought here?

 

BUFFY,

The Vampire Slayer :

By Drusilla.

The vamps outside were Spike's men.

 

 ANGEL :

She's crazy enough to do it.

 

BUFFY,

The Vampire Slayer :

Do what? Reassemble The Judge?

 

 ANGEL :

Bring forth Armageddon.

 

CORDELIA :

Is anybody else gonna have cake?

 

We need to get this out of town.

Angel.

 

 ANGEL :

What?

 

You're the only one that can protect this thing.

 

BUFFY,

The Vampire Slayer :

What about me?

 

You're gonna skip town for a few months?

 

 ANGEL :

I gotta get this to the remotest region possible.

 

BUFFY,

The Vampire Slayer :

But that's not months.

 

 ANGEL :

I can catch a cargo ship to Asia...

 

BUFFY,

The Vampire Slayer :

You know, flying machines are safer than they used to be.

 

 ANGEL :

I can't fly. There's no sure way to guard against the daylight.

I don't like this any more than you do, Buffy.

But there's no other choice.

 

BUFFY,

The Vampire Slayer :

When?

 

 ANGEL :

Tonight. As soon as possible.

 

BUFFY,

The Vampire Slayer :

But it's my birthday.

 

 

We are assembled here today to pay final respects to our honoured dead. 

 

And yet it should be noted that in the midst of our sorrow, this death takes place in the shadow of new life, the sunrise of a new world, a world that our beloved comrade gave his life to protect and nourish. 

 

He did not feel that sacrifice a vain or empty one... 

and we will not debate his profound wisdom at these proceedings. 

 

Of my friend, I can only say this —

Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels....

 

His was the most 

 

...Human.

 

 

SULU : 

Honours, ...hup!

 

(bagpipes play 'Amazing Grace' as the torpedo coffin is fired)

 

[Kirk's quarters]

 

KIRK: 

Come.

 

DAVID: 

I don't mean to intrude.

 

KIRK: 

No, not at all. ...I should be on the bridge.

 

DAVID: Can I talk to you for a minute?

KIRK: I've poured myself a drink. Would you like it?

DAVID: Lieutenant Saavik was right. You never have faced a death.

KIRK: No, not like this. I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I tricked my way out of death ...and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. ...I know nothing.

DAVID: You knew enough to tell Saavik that how we face death is at least as important as how we face life.

KIRK: Just words.

DAVID: But good words. That's where ideas begin. Maybe you should listen to them. I was wrong about you and I'm sorry.

KIRK: Is that what you came here to say?

 

DAVID: 

Mainly. ...And also that I'm ...proud, ...very proud ...to be your son.

 

Captain's log, stardate 8141.6. 

 

Starship Enterprise departing for Ceti Alpha Five to pick up the crew of the U.S.S. Reliant. 

All is well. 

 

And yet I can't help wondering about the friend I leave behind. 

'There are always possibilities' Spock said. 

 

And if Genesis is indeed 'Life from death', 

I must return to this place again.

 

 

[Enterprise bridge]

 

McCOY: 

He's really not dead. 

As long as we remember him.

 

KIRK: 

'It's a far, far better thing I do 

than I have ever done before. 

...A far better resting place 

that I go to than I have ever known'.

 

CAROL: 

Is that a poem?

 

KIRK: 

No, no. 

 

Something Spock was trying to tell me. 

On my birthday.

 

McCOY: 

You okay, Jim? 

How do you feel?

 

KIRK: 

Young. I feel young.

 

(the torpedo coffin lays in a clearing in the new, verdant forest on the Genesis planet)

 

Spock's Voice :

 

Space — The Final Frontier.

 

These, are the continuing voyages of the Starship ‘Enterprise'.

 

Her ongoing mission, to explore strange new worlds…

to seek out new life-forms and new civilisations...

 

To boldly go

Where no man has gone

Before --

WHY Did Set Kill Osiris?

“Crowley said that the general tenor of the last six thousand years of human civilization could be summed up by the personalities of a family of Egyptian Gods. 

So, the next Aeon from Christ onward is The Aeon of Osiris, The Dying and Resurrected God. 

Osiris is also The Law Giver and He brings with Him The Written Word, so now ideas can be enshrined in books and books can outlast generations and they take on the aura of Gods Themselves.


God Himself is present in the works of the Bible. God Himself is present in the Quran. So certainly, there’s this programming code language, the instructional Dad Language, which can take people over just from reading a book and turn them into Agents of The Dad God’s Expansionist, Controlling Agenda. This is when Nature goes from Provider to something that exists to be tamed and exploited. That’s The Aeon of Osiris.



Following Osiris, comes this fiery breakdown, the child Horus is the son of Osiris and he’s every jihadi, every warrior, every rock star reformer, every young man who sees as his sacred mission the tearing down of structures, the questioning of rules. It’s punk rock, “I gotta tear it all down.” 

But running in tandem with that, according to Kenneth Grant, is the shadow Aeon of Ma’at, Horus’ sister and she’s the goddess of truth and balance and harmony and all that Wonder Woman stuff.


WHY Did Set Kill Osiris?

Murder. ... Seth, the god of disorder, murdered his brother Osiris, the God of Order. Seth was furious because His Wife, Nepthys, had conceived a child, named Anubis, by Osiris. 

And THAT’S Why He Cuts His Dick Off — 

and fed it to a Crab.

The murder happened at a banquet when Seth invited guests to lie down in a coffin he had made for The King.

After Horus was thrown into exile, Gods who stood in Set's way were killed or presumably enslaved. Set confronted Nephthys who tried using her wings to fly away but Set grabbed on to Nephthys' wing and threw her to the ground. Set cut off her wings and PRESUMABLY killed her.

Nephthys was not only a Goddess of Death, Decay, and Darkness but also a Magician with great healing powers. Nephthys has a central role in the popular myths of Osiris; it is HER magical powers that helps to resurrect his body, as well as to protect and nurture Horus while he is a child.

Nephthys helped Isis bring Osiris back to life after he was killed by Seth, so she is often depicted in tombs and on coffins as a protector of the dead, specifically associated with the organs placed in canopic jars. Nephthys and Isis look very similar and can only be differentiated by their headdresses.

The Black Prince

"In the Mesopotamian creation myth, 

mostly what you see menacing Humanity is  

Tiamat. 

She’s the 

Dragon of Chaos. 

That’s Mother Nature, 

Red in Tooth and Claw. 

But by the time the Egyptians come along, 

it isn’t only Nature that threatens Humanity: 

it’s The Social Structure itself. 

So the Egyptians had two deities that represented The Social Structure. 

 One was Osiris, who was like The Spirit of the Father. 

 He was a Great Hero who established Egypt, but became  

old, willfully blind, and senile. 

He had an evil brother named Seth.

Seth was always conspiring to overthrow him. 

And, because Osiris ignored him long enough, Seth did overthrown him—

Chopped him into pieces and distributed them all around The Kingdom. 

"Re-member Me."

-Hamlet, Father of Hamlet,

Act 2 Scene I

"Re-Member."

- Spock,

Star Trek II : The Wrath of Kahn

The Black Princess

Osiris’ son, Horus, had to come back and defeat Seth, to take the kingdom back. 

That’s how that story ends. But the Egyptians seemed to have realized—maybe because they had become bureaucratized to quite a substantial degree—that it wasn’t only nature that threatened humankind: it was also the proclivity of human organizations to become too large, too unwieldy, too deceitful, and too willfully blind, and, therefore, liable to collapse. 

Again, I see echoes of that in the story of the Tower of Babel. It’s a calling for a kind of humility of social engineering. 
One of the other things I’ve learned as a social scientist…I’ve been warned about this by, I would say, great social scientists…is that 

You want to be very careful about doing large-scale experimentation with large-scale systems, because the probability that, if you implement a scheme in a large-scale social system, that that scheme will have the result that you intended, is negligible. 

What will happen will be something that you don’t intend—and, even worse, something that works at counter-purposes to your original intent. 

That Makes Sense. 

If you have a very, very complex system, and you perturb it, the probability that you can predict the consequences of the perturbation is extraordinarily low, obviously. If the system works, though, you think you understand it, because it works. You think it’s simpler than it actually is, and so then you think that your model of it is correct, and then you think that your manipulation of the model, which produces the outcome you model, will be the outcome that’s actually produced in the world. That doesn’t work, at all. 

I thought about that an awful lot, thinking about how to remediate social systems. Obviously, they need careful attention and adjustment. It struck me that the proper strategy for implementing social change is to stay within your domain of competence. That requires humility, which is a virtue that is never promoted in modern culture, I would say. It’s a virtue that you can hardly even talk about. But humility means you’re probably not as smart as you think you are, and you should be careful. So then the question might be, well, ok, you should be careful, but perhaps you still want to do good. You want to make some positive changes. How can you be careful and do good? Then I would say, well, you try not to step outside the boundaries of your competence. You start small, and you start with things that you actually could adjust, that you actually do understand, that you actually could fix. 

I mentioned to you, at one point, that one of the things Carl Jung said was that modern men don’t see God because they don’t look low enough. It’s a very interesting phrase. One of the things that I’ve been promoting online, I suppose, is the idea that you should restrict your attempts to fix things to what’s at hand. There’s probably things about you that you could fix, right? Things that you know aren’t right—not anyone else’s opinion: your own opinion. Maybe there’s some things that you could adjust in your family. That gets hard. You have to have your act together a lot before you can start to adjust your family, because things can kick back on you really hard. You think, well, it’s hard to put yourself together. It’s really hard to put your family together. Why the hell do you think you can put the world together? Because, obviously, the world is more complicated than you and your family. And so, if you’re stymied in your attempts even to set your own house in order—which, of course, you are—then you would think that what that would do would be to make you very, very leery about announcing your broad-scale plans for social revolution. 

It’s a peculiar thing because that isn’t how it works. People are much more likely to announce their plans for broad-scale social revolution than they are to try to set themselves straight or their families straight. I think the reason for that is that, as soon as they try to set themselves or their families straight, the system immediately kicks back at them—instantly. Whereas, if they announce their plans for large-scale social revolution, the lag between the announcement and the kickback is so long that they don’t recognize that there’s any error. You can get away with being wrong, if nothing falls on you for a while. It’s also an incitement to hubris, because you announce your plans for large-scale social revolution, stand back, and you don’t get hit by lightning, and you think, well, I might be right, even though you’re seriously not right. I might be right! And then you think, well, how wonderful is that? Especially if you can do it without any real effort. Fundamentally, I believe that that’s what universities teach students to do, now. I really believe that. I think it’s absolutely appalling and horribly dangerous, because it’s not that easy to fix things, especially if you’re not committed to it. I think you know if you’re committed, because what you try to do is straighten out your own life, first, and that’s enough. 

I think the New Testament states that it’s more difficult to rule yourself than it is to rule the city. That’s not a metaphor. All of you who made announcements to yourself every January about changing your diet and going to the gym know perfectly well how difficult it is to regulate your own impulses and to bring yourself under the control of some ethical and attentive structure of values. It’s extraordinarily difficult. People don’t do it. Instead, they wander off, and I think they create towers of Babel. 

The story indicates that those things collapse under their own weight, and everyone goes their own direction. I think I see that happening with the LGBT community. One of the things I’ve noticed that’s very interesting is that the community is, in some sense…It’s not a community. That’s a technical error. But it’s composed of outsiders, let’s say. What you notice across the decades is that the acronym list keeps growing. I think that’s because there’s an infinite number of ways to be an outsider. Once you open the door to the construction of a group that’s characterized by failing to fit into a group, then you immediately create a category that’s infinitely expandable. I don’t know how long the acronym list is now—it depends on which acronym list you consult—but I’ve seen lists of 10 or more acronyms. One of the things that’s happening is that the community is starting to fragment in its interior, because there is no unity. Once you put a sufficient plurality under the sheltering structure of a single umbrella, say, the disunity starts to appear within. I think that’s also a manifestation of the same issue that this particular story is dealing with. 

So that ends, I would say, the most archaic stories in the Bible. I think the flood story and the Tower of Babel story outline the two fundamental dangers that beset mankind. One is the probability that blindness and sin will produce a natural catastrophe, or entice one. That’s one that modern people are very aware of, in principle, right? We’re all hyper-concerned about environmental degradation catastrophe. That’s the continual reactivation of an archetypal idea in our unconscious minds—that there’s something about the way we’re living that’s unsustainable and will create a catastrophe. It’s so interesting because people believe that firmly and deeply, but they don’t see the relationship between that and the archetypal stories. It’s the same story: overconsumption, greed, all of that, is producing an unstable state, and nature will rebel and take us down. 

You hear that every day, in every newspaper, in every TV station. It’s broadcast to you constantly. That idea is presented in Genesis, in the story of Noah. So one warning that exists in the stories is to beware of natural catastrophe that’s produced as a consequence of blindness and greed, let’s say. The other is, beware of social structures that overreach, because they’ll also produce fragmentation and disintegration. It’s quite remarkable, I think, that, at the close of the story of the Tower of Babel, we’ve got both of the permanent, existential dangers that present themselves to humanity already identified.