Oh, my. It seems things are still not working well, are they?
[ but he's sure as shit not stopping, so ]
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
It is entertaining, yes! That is the entire point, as it would happen, since this undertaker is bribed with amusement. So long as you make him laugh, there can be much to gain.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
So multiple backflips, absolutely, especially from my young master. Blood sacrifice would be more difficult to manage.
In a way, yes. Ascribing such a title may be a bit too much for him, but if you are looking for a missing person in London, the best way to eliminate the obvious is to see if they already died.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Though being the sole person who officially tends to the dead, he does tend to learn interesting things just coincidentally as well.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
As for the last, both. He would be quite opposed to the idea, but he is but a young man. Though I suppose an adult would not find it amusing as well, unless they were of a particular temperament...
From what I understand, it is an old trade secret, since my young master's father also worked with him, but I never met his predecessors. I also found it quite clever, I must admit.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Is that so? Do pardon me if it is an intrusive question, but have you attended such an event?
Very clever. I may have to take a page from this Undertaker fellow some time.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Once. There was a group that likened themselves to a powerful cult to some pagan god that was stirring up trouble for my government. If you've worked under similar legislature, you'll be familiar with how little they care for such things.
Those sorts of cults can weild quite a bit of power, truly. Occultism as a hobby of noblemen has been especially on the rise where I am from, so I would not be surprised if the same thing were to happen before too long.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Though admittedly, my perspective on such things is unique, I would imagine. If it is any consolation, such cults worship beings who have long since stopped listening.
In a manner of speaking. It is not quite so prolific as those words would imply, but it certainly takes place. On occasion, they are even successful in summoning the creatures they wish to meet.
[ like himself... but sebastian just likes stepping around actually saying it because it amuses him ]
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Though I cannot disagree with your assessment, admittedly. On occasion, they may be correct, but it is not often.
Nothing quite as formal as that, I would say... Though I do have an interest in occult matters! The stories people tell of the supernatural are rather fascinating.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Perhaps. But who can know? I imagine to find out, a great price would have to be paid for such knowledge.
Not at all. And as a matter of fact, the answers to both of these questions are related, for my favorite stories are those where the story is not of the supernatural as an all-powerful force.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Rather, those stories that show the supernatural as thinking creatures in their own right are my favorite. Proud Samael that Fell to become Lucifer, or clever Mephistopheles with his wry tongue.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
So the matter of pricing I think would fall in line with Faust. Knowledge is a great power, and I certainly believe in whatever force there is looking over the world having a sense of irony.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
To know the fate of ones soul, you must first stake your soul upon that knowledge, I would think.
You know, we should trade stories some day. I believe we have similar taste.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
If you were to be of the supernatural variety, would you categorise yourself in the same way?
[ A thinking creature in their own right. Because sometimes, Contractors are seen as such. Monsters equipped with logic as their weapons alongside their powers. ]
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Though, I suppose a follow up question would be– do you believe everything has a soul?
I would quite enjoy that. There is little I enjoy more than good conversation, and this one has been quite enjoyable!
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
I believe I would, yes. The idea of any creature being all good or all evil is not one I agree with, after all. It is too simple an interpretation, a comfort based on the hope that evil is not in all.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
As for what I believe about souls... I do not believe everything has a soul, no. I believe that there is a special quality about souls, for what else would give the essence of one's being?
[ That isn't a question that Sebastian had expected, so he shifts to focus on that question instead, since it interests him quite a bit. Still, he can see how these questions are connected much more clearly now. ]
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
That depends entirely upon how you define "emotion," really. It is not so straightforward, since some definitions define it much more strictly than others.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
But personally... No, I do not. What defines a soul is personality. The unique combination of traits that makes someone up is what defines their being. Their emotional spectrum is a part of that.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Yet there are creatures in this world that do not feel things like sadness, and they possess a soul just as distinct and unique as another other. Any sentient life has a soul.
You have a point. What would your definition be, then?
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
And if something doesn't have a will of its own? An indiscernible personality?
[ He thinks about Dolls and Contractors and the difference between them. Dolls are virtually blank slates. Contractors aren't so much, but they start out that way moreso. Do they have their soul taken away and then slowly reintroduced? Or is it all made up, fabricated as much as their sky is? ]
It is a range, so far as I see it. It accounts for the fact that not all creatures feel all emotions. By the human definition, that would make them deficient, naturally. Those creatures would be monsters.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
But why is that? Is the capacity to feel necessary? Emotion can head to folly just as much as it can lead to greatness. It is a desire to lack emotion that leads to stories where devils are wholly evil.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
For if they are wholly evil, then it is not one's personal failings that are to be judged. It is the idea of it being out of their hands that gives them comfort.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
So to me, emotion is the capacity to feel, certainly. But not feeling things such as grief and empathy does not preclude feeling joy or pleasure.
[ this conversation is turning into plurk where you have to break up a serious discussion into like 10 messages god ]
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
But for something that lacks will and personality... It may, though it would be weak and feeble. [ and flavorless ] If it is alive, it is always a possibility. But in that area, the distinction becomes difficult.
Edited (will i edit every comment in this thread? yes, apparently.) 2015-01-27 16:50 (UTC)
I do not mind them. I find the conversation interesting myself, so really, thank you for indulging me with such a conversation.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
But to your question, yes and no. Yes, they are monsters. But no, their souls are not feeble at all, so far as I can see it.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Those that kill to survive do abandon their humanity in some respect. They leave behind innocence, gazing into an abyss from which there is no return. And so too will it gaze into them.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
However, it is those souls that are the strongest of all. Those souls that will grasp onto the possibility of survival, even if it is no more than a spider's thread... They wish to live.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Whether they feel or not, it would seem irrelevant to me. To embrace that abyss, to kill to survive at any cost... It will deliver a crown decorated in despair. But a soul is certain.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
he's blessed by sebastian i see
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
I do hope "that" is something rather entertaining. Like multiple backflips. Or blood sacrifice.
no subject
Oh, my. It seems things are still not working well, are they?
[ but he's sure as shit not stopping, so ]
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
It is entertaining, yes! That is the entire point, as it would happen, since this undertaker is bribed with amusement. So long as you make him laugh, there can be much to gain.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
So multiple backflips, absolutely, especially from my young master. Blood sacrifice would be more difficult to manage.
no subject
They are, to turn a phrase, "rather fucked up" still.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
I've never known undertakers who've had such humours. Is this undertaker more like a spymaster?
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Blood sacrifice isn't as amusing? Or would your young charge be opposed to it?
[ nosy......... ]
no subject
In a way, yes. Ascribing such a title may be a bit too much for him, but if you are looking for a missing person in London, the best way to eliminate the obvious is to see if they already died.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Though being the sole person who officially tends to the dead, he does tend to learn interesting things just coincidentally as well.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
As for the last, both. He would be quite opposed to the idea, but he is but a young man. Though I suppose an adult would not find it amusing as well, unless they were of a particular temperament...
no subject
A logical standpoint if I've ever heard one. Considering how murder-happy most humans tend to be, anyway.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
I can get behind that. You can learn a lot from a dead body.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Most people don't find it terribly amusing. They can be a bit boring, honestly.
no subject
From what I understand, it is an old trade secret, since my young master's father also worked with him, but I never met his predecessors. I also found it quite clever, I must admit.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Is that so? Do pardon me if it is an intrusive question, but have you attended such an event?
no subject
Very clever. I may have to take a page from this Undertaker fellow some time.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Once. There was a group that likened themselves to a powerful cult to some pagan god that was stirring up trouble for my government. If you've worked under similar legislature, you'll be familiar with how little they care for such things.
[ Ah, secret service is a peach. ]
no subject
Those sorts of cults can weild quite a bit of power, truly. Occultism as a hobby of noblemen has been especially on the rise where I am from, so I would not be surprised if the same thing were to happen before too long.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Though admittedly, my perspective on such things is unique, I would imagine. If it is any consolation, such cults worship beings who have long since stopped listening.
no subject
How curious. At most, our little cult was harmful in the less occult side. It's an art that's alive and well where you're from?
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
The entirety of religion is based on large amounts of people worshipping things that have stopped listening, if you ask me.
no subject
In a manner of speaking. It is not quite so prolific as those words would imply, but it certainly takes place. On occasion, they are even successful in summoning the creatures they wish to meet.
[ like himself... but sebastian just likes stepping around actually saying it because it amuses him ]
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Though I cannot disagree with your assessment, admittedly. On occasion, they may be correct, but it is not often.
no subject
Is that so? You seem to be quite knowledgable about these things, Mr Michaelis. Are you an occultist?
[ He doesn't think you are, but... now this is a fun game. ]
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
"On occasion" seems to be putting it nicely.
no subject
Nothing quite as formal as that, I would say... Though I do have an interest in occult matters! The stories people tell of the supernatural are rather fascinating.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Perhaps. But who can know? I imagine to find out, a great price would have to be paid for such knowledge.
no subject
How intriguing. What sort of stories interest you the most, if you don’t mind my asking?
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
I’d agree with your assessment. As someone with at least a passing amusement for such a topic, what sort of price would you think it would require?
no subject
Not at all. And as a matter of fact, the answers to both of these questions are related, for my favorite stories are those where the story is not of the supernatural as an all-powerful force.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Rather, those stories that show the supernatural as thinking creatures in their own right are my favorite. Proud Samael that Fell to become Lucifer, or clever Mephistopheles with his wry tongue.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
So the matter of pricing I think would fall in line with Faust. Knowledge is a great power, and I certainly believe in whatever force there is looking over the world having a sense of irony.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
To know the fate of ones soul, you must first stake your soul upon that knowledge, I would think.
no subject
You know, we should trade stories some day. I believe we have similar taste.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
If you were to be of the supernatural variety, would you categorise yourself in the same way?
[ A thinking creature in their own right. Because sometimes, Contractors are seen as such. Monsters equipped with logic as their weapons alongside their powers. ]
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Though, I suppose a follow up question would be– do you believe everything has a soul?
no subject
I would quite enjoy that. There is little I enjoy more than good conversation, and this one has been quite enjoyable!
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
I believe I would, yes. The idea of any creature being all good or all evil is not one I agree with, after all. It is too simple an interpretation, a comfort based on the hope that evil is not in all.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
As for what I believe about souls... I do not believe everything has a soul, no. I believe that there is a special quality about souls, for what else would give the essence of one's being?
no subject
I'm glad to be of service, Mr Michaelis.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
It's too simple, from the most logical standpoint, because everyone has their limits. There is always something that someone will not do.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Do you think emotions are required to have a soul?
[ He's genuinely interested in this answer. ]
no subject
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
That depends entirely upon how you define "emotion," really. It is not so straightforward, since some definitions define it much more strictly than others.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
But personally... No, I do not. What defines a soul is personality. The unique combination of traits that makes someone up is what defines their being. Their emotional spectrum is a part of that.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Yet there are creatures in this world that do not feel things like sadness, and they possess a soul just as distinct and unique as another other. Any sentient life has a soul.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Or at least, that is what I believe.
no subject
You have a point. What would your definition be, then?
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
And if something doesn't have a will of its own? An indiscernible personality?
[ He thinks about Dolls and Contractors and the difference between them. Dolls are virtually blank slates. Contractors aren't so much, but they start out that way moreso. Do they have their soul taken away and then slowly reintroduced? Or is it all made up, fabricated as much as their sky is? ]
no subject
It is a range, so far as I see it. It accounts for the fact that not all creatures feel all emotions. By the human definition, that would make them deficient, naturally. Those creatures would be monsters.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
But why is that? Is the capacity to feel necessary? Emotion can head to folly just as much as it can lead to greatness. It is a desire to lack emotion that leads to stories where devils are wholly evil.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
For if they are wholly evil, then it is not one's personal failings that are to be judged. It is the idea of it being out of their hands that gives them comfort.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
So to me, emotion is the capacity to feel, certainly. But not feeling things such as grief and empathy does not preclude feeling joy or pleasure.
[ this conversation is turning into plurk where you have to break up a serious discussion into like 10 messages god ]
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
But for something that lacks will and personality... It may, though it would be weak and feeble. [ and flavorless ] If it is alive, it is always a possibility. But in that area, the distinction becomes difficult.
no subject
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
And if someone doesn't feel on any end of the spectrum, but kills to survive? Are they truly a monster?
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Would their souls be feeble as well?
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
Pardon the queries, Mr Michaelis. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge and fascinating opinions on this matter.
no subject
I do not mind them. I find the conversation interesting myself, so really, thank you for indulging me with such a conversation.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
But to your question, yes and no. Yes, they are monsters. But no, their souls are not feeble at all, so far as I can see it.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Those that kill to survive do abandon their humanity in some respect. They leave behind innocence, gazing into an abyss from which there is no return. And so too will it gaze into them.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
However, it is those souls that are the strongest of all. Those souls that will grasp onto the possibility of survival, even if it is no more than a spider's thread... They wish to live.
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
Whether they feel or not, it would seem irrelevant to me. To embrace that abyss, to kill to survive at any cost... It will deliver a crown decorated in despair. But a soul is certain.
no subject
Of course, any time.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
How interesting. You seem to take the opposing view on the strength of souls than some others I've met.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
I would hazard it's a somewhat demonic point of view, Mr Michaelis.
[ Ah. ]
no subject
Likely so. It is a point of view I tend to be quite biased towards, admittedly... Perhaps it is my old age showing?
[ ha ha ha ]
FROM: michaelis.sebastian@cdc.org
It is a viewpoint rather divorced from empathy, which makes it seem quite harsh, but it is one I have confidence in.
no subject
Old age? Certainly not. You've such a youthful disposition. I'd be shocked if you stated you were over 30.
FROM: 11.november@cdc.org
I don't find it to be harsh, honestly. It's just another differing opinion from someone who's observed behaviours over a time.
[ Empathy what's that ]
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
http://media.giphy.com/media/CMiW9zykTsYJq/giphy.gif
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)