Lincoln Cannon

It is time! It is the highest time! Today, at noontide on the summer solstice, I am thrilled to announce that I have published an extraordinary illustrated edition of Thus Spake Zarathustra, a philosophical novel by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s philosophy is among the most provocative in history. He explored a wide range of ideas across numerous works. Notable examples include Beyond Good and Evil, The Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols, and The Gay Science. But, in my estimation, Thus Spake Zarathustra stands out as Nietzsche’s masterpiece. Thus Spake Zarathustra Nietzsche wrote the original text of Thus Spake Zarathustra in parts, between 1883 and 1885. It wraps his core ideas into an epic story about a prophet, Zarathustra, who descends from mountain solitude to commune with humanity. Through a series of strange encounters, mixed with humorous dialog and poignant discourse, Zarathustra leads us on a journey of transformation. The story consists of four parts. In part one, Zarathustra explores the integration of body and spirit, and the rejection of traditional moral values. He criticizes life-denying philosophies, and discusses the importance of embracing joys and passions. He also introduces the concept of the Ubermensch, a higher form of humanity or superhumanity. And he explores the relationship between friendship, diverse goals, and love for neighbors. In part two, Zarathustra learns from a child about self-reflection, criticizes religious manipulation, and warns against mediocrity. He celebrates the beauty of the night, contemplates mortality, criticizes shallow culture, praises the power of poetry, and ponders the death of God and redemption. He also encourages individuals to strive for greatness and authenticity. In part three, Zarathustra encounters a disillusioned wanderer, and reflects on joy and inner peace. He passes by some, while he confronts others, including apostates and the three evils. He discusses the spirit of gravity, advocates for new values, celebrates resilience and the longing for greatness, and sings a joyful dance-song. In the last part, Zarathustra responds to a cry of distress from “higher” humanity. When he finally meets them, they converse about compassion, power, superficiality, solitude, imperfection, detachment, self-integration, suffering, scientific limitations, love, awakening, joy, and belief. Together, they institute a new festival. And then, again as before in eternal recurrence, they part ways. Influence of Zarathustra Thus Spake Zarathustra has had a profound influence on the world. The book has contributed to the development of existentialism and concepts of superhumanity. And it has generated an enduring influence on philosophy, literature, and culture – particularly religion. Nietzsche’s work, including Thus Spake Zarathustra, played a crucial role in the development of existentialist philosophy. His ideas challenge traditional notions of morality and traditional conceptions of the human condition. His exploration of the individual struggle for meaning influenced existentialist thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. A prominent theme in Thus Spake Zarathustra is the concept of the ubermensch. Sometimes translated as “overman” or “superman,” the ubermensch represents people who transcend traditional morality and embrace a life-affirming philosophy. This idea has inspired thinkers and artists in various disciplines, including transhumanism and posthumanism. Thus Spake Zarathustra is not only a philosophical work but also a literary masterpiece. Nietzsche’s use of poetic language, metaphors, and allegories has influenced generations of writers, poets, and artists. His writing style, characterized by powerful imagery and unconventional structure, continues to inspire and captivate readers. Even beyond philosophy and literature, Thus Spake Zarathustra has had a broad cultural impact. Through the journey of Zarathustra, Nietzsche reimagi ...

Few use consistent coherent vocabulary to talk about AI. In particular, we tend to be careless or ignorant about important distinctions between intelligence and consciousness, and about the inexhaustibly vast possibility space for kinds and degrees of both. There’s not necessarily one right definition of “intelligence” or “consciousness.” But some effort at consistent careful use of these words would help more of us understand each other better when discussing our hopes and fears, and perspectives on practicalities, related to AI. When I think of intelligence, and when I use the word, I have in mind the capacity to achieve goals. This concept is tightly coupled with concepts of anatomy and structure, or the information of matter. Bodies are more and less intelligent in infinite variety. When I think of consciousness, in contrast, I have in mind the capacity for experience. This concept encompasses the concepts of sensing and feeling. Because we can only ever observe our own, consciousness is at once most familiar and most mysterious. As I use them, “intelligence” and “consciousness” are orthogonal concepts. We can imagine super intelligence that’s unconscious. And we can imagine deep consciousness that’s unintelligent. A subset of intelligence seems to correlate with focused or self-aware consciousness. But we can also imagine self-unaware and unfocused consciousness. We might experience this to some extent as “brain fog.” Beyond that, in anesthesia and death, we might think that consciousness is altogether annihilated. Or we might imagine de-individuation into panpsychism. Conscious or not, AI is clearly intelligent, as understood within the framework I’ve described here. It has capacity to achieve goals. In some ways, AI is far more intelligent than humans. In other ways, humans are more intelligent, at least for now. This isn’t controversial. Nor is it an inherent compliment to attribute mere intelligence to AI. Per the framework I’ve described, even bodies as simple as flush toilets are intelligent. Their anatomy works to maintain a level of water within a tank. They have capacity to achieve that goal. More complimentary it would be to attribute general intelligence to AI. When we consider this, we usually imagine that human intelligence is general intelligence. We have capacity to achieve many goals, including creation of flush toilets. And we would compare AI to ourselves. But the possibility space of intelligence — the possibility space of anatomy and structure and information — is vastly larger than even the most diverse expressions of human biology. So it’s not at all clear that humans are the best measure of general intelligence. And yet it remains practical to compare AI with humans, even if for no other reason, because we are humans. And many of us are increasingly wondering whether and to what extent AI already has or soon will surpass our intelligence in ways that will make our lives better or worse.

AI is taking over the world, it seems. ChatGPT is doing homework. Midjourney is revolutionizing art. And Copilot is writing code. For those who haven’t been paying attention, it may seem like all of this has come out of nowhere. Suddenly, anyone with an Internet connection can have a conversation with an AI that would pass most historical conceptions of the Turing Test. And entire industries that were once safely out of reach from legacy information technology are now being transformed. Even for those of us who’ve been paying attention, even anticipating such advances, there’s still something surreal about it all. It’s no wonder that some people have become deeply troubled by the change. Maybe that it includes you. Or maybe it’s about to include you, as you read the next sentence. The troubled people, in this case, include not a small number of experts in the field of AI and adjacent areas of study. A noteworthy example is Eliezer Yudkowsky. He’s a decision theorist and founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), a non-profit organization that focuses on the development of safe AI – or what he would describe as AI that’s aligned with human values. Eliezer recently appeared on Bankless Shows, where he was interviewed about recent developments in AI and proclaimed quite seriously, “we’re all gonna die.” [ Visit the webpage to view the media. ] In his serious concern with AI, Eliezer is far from alone. Future of Life Institute The Future of Life Institute (FLI) is a non-profit research organization that aims to mitigate existential risks facing humanity, particularly those related to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nuclear weapons. FLI recently published an open letter regarding AI experiments. As of today, it has over 14K signatures, including many from active researchers. The letter calls for a six-month pause on the development of artificial intelligence systems that are more powerful than the newest version of ChatGPT. It argues that AI labs should use this pause to develop safety protocols, which should then be audited and overseen by independent experts. The letter also calls for development of robust AI governance systems, including regulation of highly capable AI systems, and liability for AI-caused harm. It argues that humanity can enjoy a flourishing future with AI, but only if we plan and manage its development carefully. Eliezer Yudkowsky Eliezer didn’t sign FLI’s open letter. Does he think it was asking for too much? No. To the contrary, as he wrote in an editorial on the TIME website, “pausing AI developments isn’t enough.” “We need to shut it all down,” continued Eliezer. Why? He argues that it’s difficult to predict thresholds that will result in the creation of superhuman AI, and that there’s risk that labs could unintentionally cross critical thresholds without noticing. If they do, speculates Eliezer, the most likely outcome is that everyone on Earth will die. Eliezer argues that, absent the ability to imbue AI with care for sentient life, there’s high risk that superhuman AI will not do what humans want. While it’s possible in principle to create an AI that cares for sentient life, current science and technology aren’t adequate. And the result of conflict with superhuman intelligence would likely be a total loss for humanity. Eliezer observes that there’s no plan for how to build superhuman AI and survive the consequences. The current plans of AI labs, such as OpenAI and DeepMind, are insufficient. So we urgently need a more serious approach to mitigating the risks of superhuman AI. And that could take a lot longer than six months, possibly even decades, as illustrated by efforts to address similar risks associated with nuclear weapons. But not everyone agrees with Eliezer. Max More Max More is a philosopher and futurist. He’s best known for his work as a leading proponent of Transhumanism. Max has written extensively about the ethics of emerging ...

A friend is exploring Mormon Transhumanism. He finds it “mind-expanding” and “faith promoting,” and even an “honest, authentic, and unexpectedly practical approach to religion.” But he’s also tentative about it, mostly because his “desire to remain in the mainstream of the Church is strong.” And he wonders whether and how both are possible. This friend isn’t alone. I’ve had the opportunity – really, the good fortune and privilege – to talk with many friends about such perceptions over the years. They recognize the practical power of a Transhumanist approach to our religion. And they wonder how best to take advantage of that power without losing or harming their relationship with the Church and culture that they love and support. I know about this first-hand too, although somewhat differently than some of my friends, who encounter Transhumanism from a place of faith. I had lost my faith when I encountered Transhumanism. And Transhumanism was a major reason that I eventually regained my faith. It probably also contributed substantially to keeping me in the Church. Below are some questions that my friend sent me. Each is followed by some of my thoughts in response. And the thoughts include links to other articles that elaborate more. Hopefully this will be helpful, both for my friend who sent the questions and for other friends (current and future) who read it. Prayer “Do you pray? Who do you pray to? How do you pray?” I pray to God in the name of Christ. That’s the short answer. There are many longer answers. I’ll elaborate a bit. My aspiration is to pray always, as Nephi in the Book of Mormon encourages us to do. I want my thoughts, words, and actions to be prayers – always. I want them always to be expressions of courage toward creation of compassionate worlds, following the example of Jesus Christ. Of course I don’t always live up to this aspiration. But it’s my aspiration nonetheless. And of course I can’t pray always in formal ways. That wouldn’t be practical. But I do pray formally. Most of my formal prayers, from a Mormon perspective, take unsurprising forms. I pray formally at Church, before meals, with family, and with friends. I also participate in formal prayers with persons of other faith traditions, as opportunities permit. When I pray formally, I usually close my eyes. Sometimes I kneel, depending on the context. Again, nothing about this is surprising, from a Mormon perspective. When praying with persons of other faith traditions, I’ll sometimes adopt their formalities, such as holding hands around a table for a prayer before a meal. I pray in the name of Christ. By this, I mean that I try to follow the example of Jesus. And I take seriously his invitation to join him in Christ, taking on that name and role to the best of my ability. And I pray to God. By this, I mean that my intention is directed toward God in the most holistic sense, reflecting the whole breadth of Mormon theology. Principally, that is the creator of our world, who represents our superhuman potential. And it also includes expressions of God in our community and environment, and in me. Prophets “Do you believe that scripture and revelations are knowledge from our creators given to prophets? Do you believe that the our prophets have an elevated interaction with God(s), and receive knowledge from them to guide the church and humanity?” I’ve recently written at length about my perspective on scripture. In summary, I esteem as scripture that which we receive from the Holy Ghost – the sublime esthetic. Of course that includes formal authoritative scripture, when we read it with inspiration. And it also includes any other text, not necessarily with any authoritative weight, when we read with inspiration. I esteem scripture and revelation to be primarily esthetic matters – spiritual matters. They can and should also provide knowledge in the sense of shared edification and understanding. They don’t necessarily provide knowledge in a scientific sense. ...

As far back as I can remember, I’ve always loved scripture. My parents used scripture to teach me to read. As a child and teenager, I read both the Bible and all the Mormon scriptures – large portions of them countless times. And, although less thoroughly, I read scripture from other faith traditions too. Even when I lost my faith as a young adult, scripture continued to fascinate me. At the time, it wasn’t because I maintained a traditional reverence toward scripture. But I still couldn’t help but recognize its exceptional cultural power. And, as it turned out, that recognition ended up playing a prominent role in my eventual return to faith. In part because of faith transitions, and in part informing those transitions, I developed an unusual perspective on scripture. As is typical of the unusual, it provokes diverse and sometimes strong reactions. Some clearly consider my perspective on scripture to be strange, at best – or ridiculous or blasphemous. Others tell me that my perspective on scripture helped change their lives for the better. The latter is how I feel about it. For me, the perspective on scripture that I developed has been nothing short of transformational. It was like a doorway from one world into another, that I didn’t and couldn’t even imagine before walking through it. And the new world is so much bigger, more beautiful, and more wonder-inspiring that I wouldn’t wish to return to the old, even if I could. Reflecting on that, and in response to recurring questions from friends and acquaintances over the years, I thought there would be value in making an effort to articulate something of a framework for my perspective on scripture. In the least, it exercises introspection. But I’m also either arrogant or audacious enough to suppose that it stands a good chance of helping many more people. So, extending the doorway metaphor, I give you eight keys to transformative scriptural understanding. Scripture Is an Expression of Doctrine Christians esteem the Bible to be doctrine, or authoritative teachings. I share in that esteem in a general sense. But some Christians claim that doctrine is limited to the Bible. For them, if a teaching isn’t in the Bible, it’s not doctrine. It has no Christian authority, at least ostensibly. For them, the Bible is the measure of authority. For other Christians, such as I, the Bible is an expression of doctrine, and not the only expression. From our perspective, Christian authority transcends any particular text. The Bible remains important, but that importance is not exclusive. Something else measures the authority of the Bible. In the Bible, Jesus claims, “ My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.” Jesus is a Jew speaking to Jews, but this doesn’t sound like an appeal to the authority of their Hebrew Bible. And it astonishes some who listen to him, “because he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the teachers of the law.” In the Book of Mormon, Jesus defines his doctrine in these words: “Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine. “And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; … and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. “And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. … “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.” As I understand these passages of scripture, they encourage us to recognize doctrine in a core idea, or set of ideas. It is that faith, repentance ...

CryptoPunk V1 1234 was stolen from me in a scam. For you, I hope, the story will be educational and cautionary. For me, the story is also sad. CryptoPunk V1 1234 is an NFT (non-fungible token). If you don’t know much about NFTs, or if you’d like to know more, I recommend reading about NFTs on the Ethereum Foundation website. It will help you understand this story better. Basically, CryptoPunk V1 1234 is a work of digital art and associated data stored on the Ethereum blockchain. It is one of 10,000 unique CryptoPunk V1 NFTs (hereafter V1s). They are the original CryptoPunk NFTs that Larva Labs created in 2017. After distributing the V1s, Larva Labs became aware of a bug in their code. So they created and distributed 10,000 more CryptoPunk V2 NFTs (hereafter V2s), using the same digital art and fixed code. Some V2s have since sold for millions of dollars. Today, the lowest asking price for a V2 is 63.95 ETH ($80,848.15). In late 2021, someone figured out how to work around the V1 bug. Soon, people began trading V1s. Their prices were much lower than those for V2s. But, in early 2022, V1 prices began rising rapidly. I’ve been investing in NFTs since January 2021. For the most part, the investments have been profitable. So, when the V1s came to my attention, I purchased CryptoPunk V1 5982 for 14.5 ETH ($38,992.53). About a week later, I sold it for 18.3358 ETH ($57,037.76). Using some of the profit, I purchased CryptoPunk V1 1234 on 7 February 2022 for 14.995 ETH ($47,104.99). At the time, I wasn’t sure whether I would sell it soon or hold on to it for the long term. But three events occurred that ended up making that decision for me. First, the largest NFT marketplace, OpenSea, delisted V1s. Apparently, Larva Labs was unhappy that people had begun trading V1s. So they sent a DMCA takedown notice to OpenSea. Although the legality of the DMCA was controversial, OpenSea complied. Consequently, it became much harder to sell V1s. Yuga Labs eventually acquired the CryptoPunks IP from Larva Labs. And OpenSea eventually listed V1s again. But, by that time, there was another problem. Second, the blockchain industry (like most other industries) descended into a bear market. Based on experience through multiple boom and bust cycles in blockchain investing, I was expecting a bear market. But I wasn’t expecting it so soon. Maybe the war in Ukraine accelerated it. In any case, there was no longer a realistic possibility that I could sell CryptoPunk V1 1234 for a profit in the short term. I could sell it for a loss. Or I could hold on to it, perhaps at least until the next bull market. But, as it turns out, there was another problem. Third, I was scammed. The Scam On 16 May 2022, I wasn’t at my best. On top of the usual daily challenges associated with running a startup business, the air conditioning in our home, where I work, was being repaired. And, most concerning, my son was in exploratory surgery, after months of intermittent severe gut pain and numerous inconclusive tests. Suffice it to say, I was unusually unfocused and emotionally fatigued when, late in the day, I saw a tweet from “adidas Originals.” The tweet claimed that Adidas, the well-known sports brand, was offering NFT avatars. I was already aware that Adidas had initiated an NFT marketing campaign at the end of 2021. And my initial impression, from the tweet, was that Adidas was extending that campaign with a new offering. Because investments in the original Adidas NFT campaign had performed well, I was interested. In hindsight, the tweet presented some red flags that I should have, and ordinarily probably would have, noticed and considered more carefully. For example, although the account that posted the tweet had thousands of followers, it was relatively new. And many, if not most, of the retweets and likes also came from relatively new accounts with few followers. Despite those red flags, I clicked on the link in the tweet to check out the website. The website claimed th ...

In that day, when all the world is taxed and pregnant with prophecy, babies who will be Christ are born. Sublime messengers herald the good news to those who kept watch during the night. And they spread the word. Some wonder and ponder in their hearts. Many are troubled. Children who will be Christ grow in wisdom and stature. Venturing from their parents, they find themselves among authorities in revered places. There, they hear and ask questions. They understand and answer. All are astonished. No longer children, they who will be Christ go to the wilderness. They ask. Refused, they ask again, that all may know their commitment is stronger than the cords of death. Then with consent, they are fully immersed in Christ. And the sublime esthetic descends on them. In the wilderness, Christ is tempted. Maybe they should fulfill their own desires. Maybe they should leave the sublime work to others. Maybe they should even worship the one who aspires to rise above all others as God alone. But temptation leaves and sublime ministers come. From that time, Christ begins to teach: “Change! Join us. Fully immerse yourselves in Christ, as exemplified and invited by Jesus.” Immediately some join. And, together, they go about teaching. As their fame spreads, many more join. “Bless and be blessed. You are the saviors of humanity. What could the world do without you? You are the light of the world. Let your light shine. Love God. Love everyone as you love yourselves. Love even your enemies, that you may be perfect as God is perfect.” Christ goes about consoling and healing the people, who bring the sick and tormented. When they bring the dead, Christ says they will rise. Some misunderstand, thinking only of a future day. So Christ raises the dead and tells others to help. But many conspire for death. Resorting to the high mountains, Christ is transfigured. Their faces shine as the sun, their clothes as the light. Ancient prophets appear to them. Sublime voices speak to them. But they share the full vision with no one, except those who will rise again from the dead. Despite conspiracies to kill them, Christ descends from the mountains and goes again among the people. Great crowds greet them. So they teach and invite. And, in their zeal, they reprove and scourge those who abuse authority to raise themselves above others. Now when the evening comes, Christ sits down to eat. They take food, bless it, and share it in memory of their body. They take drink, give thanks for it, and share it in memory of their blood. This night, they know, they will betray and deny each other. And they will suffer. Distressed and troubled, then overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death, Christ falls and prays. In anguish, despite sublime comforters, they pray more earnestly. Trembling in pain, sweating and bleeding, they relinquish themselves to betrayal and denial. Among authorities, Christ is stripped and ridiculed. Before the world, they are tortured. They cry with a loud voice, “God, why have you forsaken us?” And they are ridiculed again. In the darkness, they cry again. And finally they die. Heavens weep. Earth mourns. Eternity shakes. Silence. Early in the morning at first light, tombs open. And Christ begins to rise. Maybe they are undertakers. But their voices and words are familiar. Maybe they are ghosts. But they have bodies as tangible as our own. Maybe they are lies. But knowledge is revealed, and power is endowed. Grace by grace, Christ continues to rise. In that day, beyond past notions of poverty and enmity and death, Christ returns as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west. Sublime messengers herald the good news to all the world. And all the world sees that we are Christ. In gratitude for your support, I’m giving an NFT for artwork in this article to everyone who owned any other NFT in the Lincoln Cannon contract as of Christmas morning 2022. Merry (after) Christmas!

CryptoPunk V1 1234 was stolen from me in a scam. For you, I hope, the story will be educational and cautionary. For me, the story is also sad. CryptoPunk V1 1234 is an NFT (non-fungible token). If you don’t know much about NFTs, or if you’d like to know more, I recommend reading about NFTs on the Ethereum Foundation website. It will help you understand this story better. Basically, CryptoPunk V1 1234 is a work of digital art and associated data stored on the Ethereum blockchain. It is one of 10,000 unique CryptoPunk V1 NFTs (hereafter V1s). They are the original CryptoPunk NFTs that Larva Labs created in 2017. After distributing the V1s, Larva Labs became aware of a bug in their code. So they created and distributed 10,000 more CryptoPunk V2 NFTs (hereafter V2s), using the same digital art and fixed code. Some V2s have since sold for millions of dollars. Today, the lowest asking price for a V2 is 63.95 ETH ($80,848.15). In late 2021, someone figured out how to work around the V1 bug. Soon, people began trading V1s. Their prices were much lower than those for V2s. But, in early 2022, V1 prices began rising rapidly. I’ve been investing in NFTs since January 2021. For the most part, the investments have been profitable. So, when the V1s came to my attention, I purchased CryptoPunk V1 5982 for 14.5 ETH ($38,992.53). About a week later, I sold it for 18.3358 ETH ($57,037.76). Using some of the profit, I purchased CryptoPunk V1 1234 on 7 February 2022 for 14.995 ETH ($47,104.99). At the time, I wasn’t sure whether I would sell it soon or hold on to it for the long term. But three events occurred that ended up making that decision for me. First, the largest NFT marketplace, OpenSea, delisted V1s. Apparently, Larva Labs was unhappy that people had begun trading V1s. So they sent a DMCA takedown notice to OpenSea. Although the legality of the DMCA was controversial, OpenSea complied. Consequently, it became much harder to sell V1s. Yuga Labs eventually acquired the CryptoPunks IP from Larva Labs. And OpenSea eventually listed V1s again. But, by that time, there was another problem. Second, the blockchain industry (like most other industries) descended into a bear market. Based on experience through multiple boom and bust cycles in blockchain investing, I was expecting a bear market. But I wasn’t expecting it so soon. Maybe the war in Ukraine accelerated it. In any case, there was no longer a realistic possibility that I could sell CryptoPunk V1 1234 for a profit in the short term. I could sell it for a loss. Or I could hold on to it, perhaps at least until the next bull market. But, as it turns out, there was another problem. Third, I was scammed. The Scam On 16 May 2022, I wasn’t at my best. On top of the usual daily challenges associated with running a startup business, the air conditioning in our home, where I work, was being repaired. And, most concerning, my son was in exploratory surgery, after months of intermittent severe gut pain and numerous inconclusive tests. Suffice it to say, I was unusually unfocused and emotionally fatigued when, late in the day, I saw a tweet from “adidas Originals.” The tweet claimed that Adidas, the well-known sports brand, was offering NFT avatars. I was already aware that Adidas had initiated an NFT marketing campaign at the end of 2021. And my initial impression, from the tweet, was that Adidas was extending that campaign with a new offering. Because investments in the original Adidas NFT campaign had performed well, I was interested. In hindsight, the tweet presented some red flags that I should have, and ordinarily probably would have, noticed and considered more carefully. For example, although the account that posted the tweet had thousands of followers, it was relatively new. And many, if not most, of the retweets and likes also came from relatively new accounts with few followers. Despite those red flags, I clicked on the link in the tweet to check out the website. The website claimed th ...

There are at least two ways to be less wrong. You can decrease risk of being wrong, which also decreases opportunity for being right. Or you can increase opportunity for being right, which also increases risk of being wrong. Neither is necessarily proportionate. The surest way to be less wrong is to be less – to live less, even to exist less. That which doesn’t exist is never wrong. If we imagine that to be wrong, such is so only to the extent that our imagination imbues existence. Nihilism is less wrong. To remain true to life, one cannot consistently prioritize being less wrong above being more right. The former is a practical dead end – figuratively, literally, even informatically. The latter entails perpetual risk. And perpetual risk entails perpetual cost. Life demands it. Work toward being less wrong can be and often is helpful. However, if desire to be less wrong supersedes desire to be more right, if work toward being less wrong supersedes work toward being more right, on the whole, we are servants of death. The aspiration to be less wrong is not better than the aspiration to overcome bias. Some biases, such as love, can be worth cultivating rather than overcoming. Likewise, the risk of being more wrong can be worth the opportunity of being more right. Will she love you back? Until you take a risk, you won’t know. That’s how life works. That’s how wisdom works. So that’s what true philosophers do. We take risks, only sometimes calculated, because we love her.

A friend asked me questions about the historical Jesus. Was he important? Is he still important? If so, why? I’ve written much about Jesus over the years. My emphasis is often on the importance of revering Jesus as an example, the principal example, of sublime humanity or the mortal approach to Godhood. Scripture would extend from Jesus to us all of the same titles and roles. Most important among those is the title of Christ, which we receive in baptism, and the role of Atonement, in which Jesus invites us to participate. Because of my emphasis on worship as emulation, sometimes people wonder whether I think the general idea of Christ might be sufficient, independent of an historical Jesus. As my friend put it, “How does Jesus the person matter to this?” And he presses farther, asking, “How does any particular one of us (God the Father even) influence us to love, forgive, collaborate, etc. in a way that the whole massive collective could not do anyhow without that influence?” These are important questions because most Mormons, like most Christians, have strong feelings toward the historical Jesus. And those feelings arise, in large measure, from the influence of scripture that emphasizes his importance. The Book of Mormon even goes so far as to assert that “there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved.” So how do Mormons understand this? How could we explain the perspective that, as my friend put it, “the event of Jesus of Nazareth’s particular life and messianic atonement [is] ‘indispensable’ for all human divinization?” And could we explain this in a practical way – in contrast to any appeal to supernaturalism? My initial answer to his question was in conversation. And there were two parts to the answer. We Require Each Member of Christ First, each of us matters individually and particularly, and not just generally or in the abstract. Like each specific person you love matters individually and particularly to you, the historical Jesus matters individually and particularly to those who knew and loved him specifically. If we care only about the specific persons that matter to us, we’re being uncharitable. To the extent that we give up or lose hope in redeeming particular persons, we cultivate escapism. To the extent that our account of transfiguration and resurrection to immortality becomes merely an abstraction, it becomes a euphemism for death. But most of us aspire to an eternal life that’s as real as light and as warm as love. And that requires all the individualities, particularities, and specificities of real life. That requires your real friends and family, as well as their real friends and family. And that requires the real historical Jesus. The Gospel of Christ doesn’t require us to raise Jesus above all else that’s called “God.” And Jesus doesn’t ask for that. To the contrary, the scriptures associate such behavior with Satan. Instead, as they do consistently with all roles, scriptures extend from Jesus to us each the same role of individual necessity. If there’s even one lost sheep, Jesus encourages us to go after him. If there’s even one lost soul, how great will be our joy after we help her return. We without them, and they without us, cannot be made perfect. Recall the Book of Mormon assertion that none can be saved except by the name of “Jesus Christ” specifically. There’s more. The Book of Mormon also encourages us each, individually, to take on the name of “Christ” – the title without the name “Jesus.” And it does so within another sermon that asserts, more generally in reference to “Christ,” that “there shall be no other name given nor any other way or means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.” We can, of course, interpret these passages of scriptures in various ways. The interpretation that makes the most sense to my mind and feels the best in my hear ...