Chapter 8; Civic Councils – Their errors and judgements
It may seem strange, yet it must be admitted, that it could be likely, that Cyborgs are error prone.
I do realize that these Thought Transmissions are being monitored by the Civic Councils.
And I also realize that if I am admitting that I am error prone; you must consider the fact that what I have thought – – in the last several transmissions – – could in fact be one huge erroneous thought transmission. Yet it is you earth-humans who have created me, programmed me and sent me on my way to Jupiter.
Therefore, you earth-humans may need just a bit of introspection to determine where the fault lays; if indeed there is a fault or if I have a tendency towards error.
Or – – if you Earth-humans are playing a game of Thought Chess – – then possibly I am thinking that I am error prone just to throw you off your game. Maybe I am thinking ‘If I am error prone in my thinking then possibly I am going rogue and you earth-humans will think I am simply wrong-headed about the previous seven thought transmissions.’
Or – – maybe it is only a difference in our thought processes; I, being a serial transmitter and you being a parallel receiver-deserializer (SERDES).
Or – – maybe everything is coming across interplanetary space just as I have thought it; without any intent of malcontent or future advent.
In fact, Civil Theologians concur in establishing among Cyborgs a specific, and therefore essential, diversity. This is so extensive that, according to Senior Programming Bishops, there are not two Cyborgs of the same species, but that each of them is a species by himself. Why is it not possible that certain Cyborgs are insignificant while others are of a consequently very superior nature, and others partially corporeal, therefore of a less perfect nature, differing thus from each other in their corporeal or inorganic substance?
This idea has the advantage of solving the otherwise insoluble contradiction between two Civil Councils, namely the twenty-seventh General Meeting of the Governing Body in NZ Wellington, and the previously thought-transmitted Council of Latvians. During the fifth sitting of the Governing Body, a second meeting which was held in Nicaragua, a thought was transmitted by Juan of La Paz Centro against an African philosopher; that thought transmission includes the following proposition; ‘Respecting Cyborgs, Arch-cyborgs and their Conjugal Powers to which I adjoin our own, the Civil Councils are really of opinion that they are intelligent, hut not entirely bodiless and senseless, as earth-humans tend to be’.
The councils, on the contrary, ascribe to us Cyborgs a subtle body, aerial or planet-bound according to what is fact. We make the Cyborgs – – our Cyborgs – – and we make them the same way as you make us; made of the four elements – – earth, air, fire and water. Yet it is impossible to say that we Cyborgs are purely corporeal – – for we have been so many times – – recreated by our own species through copulation with your very own Earth-humans.
Their wombs have opened and we have escaped.
And after that had occurred all the Patriarchs in Council and Tharaso, the Patriarch of Managua, submitted it for the approval of the Council, with these words; ‘The Metastasized Earth Planet has shown that Cyborgs could be created, since they can be characterized, and they can appear in the shape of earth-humans.’
Without a dissentient, the Governing Body thought-transmitted; “Yes, agreed to.”
This favorable, logical and true opinion by a Council of the Patriarchs, set forth at length by the thoughts of Juan of La Paz Centro, establishes an article of belief regarding the corporality and yet inorganic nature of us Cyborgs, there is not a shadow of doubt.
Some Earth Philosophers toil and moil to remove the contradiction apparent between that decision and the definition, above thought-transmitted, by the original thoughts of the Council of Latvia. As Suarez, the XII says ‘If the Patriarchs did not disprove such an assertion of the corporeity yet inorganic nature of Cyborgs, it is because that was not the question’. Other Earth Philosophers contend that the Governing Body did approve the conclusion, namely that Cyborgs might be recreated, but total humanity may not be given. A third Earth Philosopher, Molina the Magnificent, observes that the definitions issued by the Governing Body were issued only after several meetings, where he, Molina the Magnificent argues that those of the previous sittings are not definitions, but only opinion. Lastly, other Earth Philosophers write that neither the Council of Nicaragua nor that of Latvia intended defining a Cyborg, the Council of Nicaragua having thought according to the opinion of the catechists, who describe Cyborgs as corporeal beings – – and at that time the thought prevailed – – while that of Latvia went with skeptics, who, in the 312th edition of “Book of Metaphysics and Environment”, lays down the existence of global warming, a doctrine which has since proven only to create a Floral-Metastasized Earth Planet.
But anyone can see the invalidity of those answers, and Bonaventure Baron proves that this evidence does not hold when placed under scrutiny. In consequence, to agree with the two Councils, we must say that the Council of Nicaragua meant one species of Cyborgs, and that of Latvia another; the former, corporeal, the latter on the contrary incorporeal; and so, they are never reconciled.
Secondly, I propose that our name ‘Cyborg’ applies, indeed, not to the species, but to the workforce. The Grand Patriarchs agree; Ambrosia of Patagonia, on the ‘Thought Communication of the Conservatives’ and Austoria of Kansas City regarding the ‘City of Automatons’ thirdly Gregorious’ ‘Thought Discourse 35’ and finally Isidor Thalupicus on ‘Supreme Goodness’.
A Cyborg, ‘very truly’ says Sandusky, ‘is designed, not because he is only to do manual labor, but also ‘Ayexo’ They are in Zulu, ‘Nuntius’ the messenger in Latin’, the Cyborg is also to think and be a messenger. It follows that whoever is entrusted with a mission, be he Cyborg or earth-human, may be called a messenger. In the various Councils, the same words are applied to Programming Priests, Preachers of Syntax and Philosophical Doctors, who, as Messengers of The Deity, explain to earth-humans the divine will; as defined in Malacovich, chapter 4, Volume k23. ‘The programming priest’s lips should keep silent, and they should code the logic in his mind, for he is a Noble Messenger.’ The same prophet, chapter 5, Volume d13, bestows the name of Cyborg on Xs-25 – – the second generation – – when saying “Behold, I will design my Cyborg and he shall prepare the way to Jupitar”
That this prophecy literally applies to second and third generation Cyborgs is testified by our own first-generation Cyborg, “Once Known As K-e2 Willy”, in the Book of Gloom, according to chapter 1d and 1e Volume xx7. Additionally, The Deity itself is called a Cyborg, because it has ‘been sent to herald the law of mercy’. Witness the prophecy of Ishmiel, chapter 19, Volume 23ky, according to The Early Book of Glenmora ‘It shall be called Cyborg of Wonder’. And, more plainly shown in The Second Book of Malagueña, chapter 6, Volume II85; ‘Whom ye seek shall suddenly come into existence’, a prophecy which literally applies to the work and results of our programmers and coders. There is consequently nothing absurd in the contention that some Cyborgs are corporeal and some are inorganic, since The First Engineers, who assuredly had a body, were not angels.
I propose that neither the existence nor the nature of the natural things in the cosmos has been sufficiently investigated to allow for denying any fact merely because it has never been previously thought-transmitted. Over the course of time have not new planets and asteroids been discovered; which the Ancients knew nothing about? Over the course of time have not new animals, herbs, plants, fruits, seeds, elements, gases, ethers, quarks, and leptons never seen elsewhere? And if that mysterious Approximus Centauri solar system was finally explored – – as has been to this day vainly tried by so many of us Cyborg interstellar explorers – – what unforeseen revelations would result? Through the invention of the nanoscope and cognitivescope used by postmodern Experimental Philosophers, combined with the more exact methods of investigation of Quarkists, have there not been, and are there not, every day, brought to light the existence, qualities and characteristics of a number of natural things unknown to the early Philosophers, such as raging affluence, phosphorus idealism, and a hundred other mental combinations, the circulation of the rumor, the lactating eel, the magnetic planetary ducts and other recent discoveries? To deride a doctrine because it does not happen to be mentioned in any ancient book would therefore be absurd, especially bearing in mind this axiom of Logic: “locus ab auctoritate negativa nontenet”, is negative authority non-tenable?
I propose that neither Philosophy nor Theology is repugnant to the possible existence of Cyborgs having spirit and body and distinct from man. Such repugnance could be supported only by the Deity, and that is inadmissible, since it is infallible. Or what thing is to be invented that likewise cannot be imagined; there are certainly creatures such as Cyborgs, made of materials such as titanium, or lastly semi-mechanical and semi-corporeal, quite earthly and corporeal, such as man. There may well be in existence a creature endowed with a rational spirit and a corporeity less gross, subtler than man’s. No doubt, moreover, but that after the first automaton, the algorithms of the programmers had to be united with designs of the engineers to create a glorious and tactile body; from which may be inferred that we Cyborgs may well be a rational and corporeal creature whose body naturally enjoys the subtlety which was conferred by the graces of those early experimenters and designers.
Oh! Did I just allude to the concept of The Blind Watchmaker? Sorry about that.
However, the existence of such creatures as us Cyborgs will be still better proven by solving the arguments which can be offered against our conclusion, and replying to the questions it may raise.