Solf J Kimblee (
explosivecombat) wrote2012-10-04 01:10 am
Entry tags:
NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX
The offer for conversation is always open, should you desire to take me up on it; I can't guarantee that I'll respond immediately, nor will it necessarily be the response you want, but I'll always respond in some way.
In the name of enlightened discourse.

no subject
As for the languages...well. I've never been much of a romantic, and neither has that significant other of mine - really, he's the sort to stop me and want to know what I was saying if I were to try to switch languages. It puts a bit of a damper on things.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Consider me flattered.
no subject
no subject
But I wouldn't expect such things anyway; as I've said, I've never been much of a romantic.
no subject
[CARMEN.]
And I'm more interested in your teachings than your nothings, anyway. Are you planning to tell me where to start on my path to enlightenment, or is my first lesson to find it on my own?
no subject
If you're looking for enlightenment, then you're coming to the wrong person. For the time being, however, consider it a bit of both; tell me where you think an acceptable starting point would be, and I'll give you a direction - is there anything in particular you would like to start with, based on what you already know?
no subject
no subject
After all, those laws aren't in place here.
no subject
[Also, wow, way to play her like a dime-store kazoo, Kimblee.]
What would be a goal more in line with my potential, then?
no subject
In the meantime, however, I'll let you know now that while I see no reason to not break laws like teaching you how to turn lead into gold, there is one thing I absolutely won't help you do, regardless of any reasons you may present to do it - I don't do human transmutation, nor will I teach anyone else how to do it.
No resurrecting the dead, no artificially creating humans, no creating chimeras, and absolutely nothing involving the manipulation of anyone's soul. There are many, many reasons why I won't touch any of that.
no subject
no subject
no subject
There's no amount of desperation in the world that could make me turn to something like that as an end.
no subject
That said, however, it's good to know that you wouldn't be interested in an attempt; I've never seen it attempted and done properly by any normal alchemist to date, but I've heard more than enough horror stories to last me quite some time. Human transmutation is an abomination, and it's treated as such by the forces of the world itself - attempting to resurrect the dead is highly dangerous for the alchemist that's trying to do it, and it's not unheard of for limbs and organs to be lost in the best-case scenario. In the worst-case scenario, you would lose your life.
The primary reason for this, however, is also the reason why the attempt is futile in the first place - there comes a point after one dies, when one's soul can't be called back to the world of the living. After that point, it's passed through something we call the Gate.
What lies beyond the Gate is unknowable; some like to think of it as Heaven, some think it's some other sort of afterlife, some believe that our souls merge with God - I couldn't tell you, myself. But the point is that there's no returning from beyond the Gate; as little as I believe in charity or assisting people beyond what's necessary, it would be a shame to see you mutilated or killed in the pursuit of a goal I know to be impossible.
no subject
no subject
However, there's a race of people within that nation who believe the entire practice - not just the act of human transmutation, but alchemy itself - to be an abomination, for religious reasons. They believe it to be a defiance of the Earth God and creator deity, Ishvala; it's seen as hubris, implying that humans see themselves as superior creators to even the gods themselves and that they can improve upon the natural gifts they've been given.
In other words, practicing alchemy at all is seen by that particular race as playing god, with powers never intended for mankind's hands; for the rest of us, it's simply progress. However, "playing god" is still the official reason cited by the government for why human transmutation is illegal in the first place.
no subject
[Understatement of the century.]
Every world has cultures that object on religious grounds to what others see as the necessary progress of science. I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. But my perspective is more in line with your country's — from what little I understand of alchemy, it can sometimes be put to use as simply a very efficient method of completing a task you could've done a longer, more involved way anyway. I think that's where the difference lies, at least somewhat: is what you're doing something that would be within the realm of human possibility anyway, through other means, or is it a pursuit that nature abhors.
But thus speaks the student with none of the background and experience of her teacher.
no subject
You are correct, however, at least in some ways - however, alchemy can be used to create "miracles," so to speak. I believe I've told you in the past that my own continued survival is the result of one of those alchemical miracles. The definition of "what nature abhors" is also a bit broad - the taking of limbs and organs that I mentioned is called a rebound, and the act of creation tends to cause them more than the act of destruction.
I assume you're more interested in that aspect, by the way - creation, as opposed to pure destruction.
no subject
Is it only the resurrection of the dead that takes limbs and organs, or are there other forms of creation that seize them as well? If it's a matter of equivalence, as you've told me before, then it seems as though anything sufficiently large enough might demand such an equally high cost, but surely you must have some idea of where the line roughly falls.
no subject
Equivalent Exchange mandates that we can't create something from nothing, nor can we destroy so thoroughly that something is rendered into nothing. "Creation," as alchemy goes, is a bit of a misleading term - it might help to not think of transmutations as being strictly a means to create/destroy, but rather a way to turn one thing into another. To use the most common example, you're creating gold by sacrificing lead. If you try to create more gold than you have lead to sacrifice, that's when you're going to get a rebound.
The reason the resurrection of the dead invariably causes a rebound is due to the alchemist trying to create a human soul from insufficient materials; souls are invaluable and can't be created through artificial means, no matter how much you have in terms of physical materials. At least, I'm fairly sure that's the reasoning behind it.
Basically, as long as you have enough materials to balance out what you're trying to create, you should be fine. Of course, there are other forms of transmutations that work a bit differently, but those also adhere to Equivalent Exchange in their own way.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)