Distributed anonymously by vendors and numerous criers, a length of writing:
---== | Nihil| ==---
I swore to silence, or I have tried to, or I have seemed to. Among my peers, I seem to be renown for it, despite never attesting to it. It is not a reputation I desire, but I cannot speak to the world; screaming on the mountaintops or from the bell tower of a cathedral- no, this is unbecoming of me. I put my quill to paper now, the blade I wield with sorrow, to perform my affair of honor for the sake of the Everwatch.
Many Unionists, whether they be the common man or one of the cloth, lack faith. Most, in fact, do; I myself, despite my service to the Everwatch, do not believe I have faith. I would swing my blade so far as to say the entirety of the Celery could be observed and not a single faithful person to be found; none amidst my peers, nor myself. But I believe people of faith exist, somewhere, and I beg all to follow them, to watch and observe them, to cross the entire Archipelago for simply the chance to see them and make the wildest discovery- they are almost indistinguishable from the rest of us, besides faith; the distinction remains, however subtle, from logic and ethics.
I do not make this claim without evidence, without certainty in my mind, and I lay before you, to your eyes and all who read, why I say so.
Let us presume a voice echoes in the ears of a parent, who would declare that the world is in dire need, that through some means unbeknownst to all others, the seed of disorder is somehow sowed, and sacrifice is required. The voice, in exchange for the child's life, the parent's one and only, shall restore the world in entirety and furthermore shall make the child a great leader amongst men.
This deal is absurd, and those that would accept it without question we deem insane and ethically so. Most would refuse, as is ethically sound to do. But there is a certain kind of person, one who acts in faith, that heeds the words, conflicts themselves, and finally decides to act upon it with doubt still in their mind. These are the people who make movements of faith.
The example I have provided is clearly absurd; a child cannot become a great leader if it has been sacrificed, but people of faith are, essentially, absurd or paradoxical, nonsensical to us because their understanding cannot be conveyed. The God Emperor Theomar wrote proudly his declaration of Unionism conveyed to him by the Everwatch, not unlike the voice heard by the parent. The Everwatch gifted us free will to choose, and it was likely to much conflict in his mind, doubt and concern for his people, the many considerations that must be made and the risk of their existence, that Theomar wrote his creeds, and glory followed. The God Empress Ness forgave those who assassinated her children, one could imagine with great difficulty to overcome, something we would declare mad for others, but we hold to high esteem in regard to Her. In more recent events, the massacre of the Songaskian civilians, a violent act, unthinkable to many, but swiftly brought peace to a nation that seemed ready to fight to the death; a decision not made without conflict, and with no guarantee of success. These examples of conflicted action, made with a paradox or absurdity inherent call to question whether or not they are logical, or even if they are faith. All of these decisions must have been difficult, drawing conflict to the mind, yet were done with a wisdom unspoken, one we now praise.
Acts of faith cannot be explained, because to explain them is to make them worldly, logical, rationale, ethical; it ceases to be faith, and instead becomes routine or culture or courtesy or common sense, not faith. People who act on their religion with no doubt in their mind are acting with as much faith as those who lack religion entirely; if one sees the world through their religion, it has ceased to be faith but instead only become their reality. They do not act with the Everwatch's gift of free will, because their mind is concluded; they have no conflict, there is no faith to enact because their decision has already been made by their religion, not by their will.
It should be said, then, that either one believes faith exists and the parent has a decision to make, or that faith has never existed, because to kill the child is immoral and faith is no consideration one should make.
The Knight's actions come from code, an adherence to action via sworn vow, but the faithful person has no such vow, only their faith, which can show another separation. Change the parent to a Knight of virtue, and they cannot sacrifice the child, because they swore to defend the weak and defenseless. If a Knight even intended to engage in the sacrifice, they could not lie if asked about it. If they spoke the truth of their intent, then one might think them mad, or if it was a deity asking for the sacrifice, others might lose all trust in the deity, crushing hope.
If the Knight chose to carry the burden of blame, then again it is not an act of faith. If they choose to sacrifice the child for no reason, the absurdity of their own design, then they are truly mad because they have no such ability to resolve the disorder like the deity. If they chose to sacrifice the child with the understanding that it is a sacrifice for the greater good, then they do not sacrifice the child for faith, only for their code once more; their decision is ethical, not faith. In each of these cases, an outside observer loses trust in the Knight or the deity, and faith is not present. The Knight is then concluded; either they do not want to and they should not, or they do want to and should do.
The faithful are not beholden to this conflict, however. The faithful cannot tell the truth, because it cannot be explained in a worldly way. Whatever the faithful speaks on the matter would be false in comparison to the true intent, which is illogical and cannot be understood; in this way, they must hide what they are doing, as their connection is an individual one. They make a movement of faith when they engage. Unlike the Knight, what they should do is not made clear by vows or ethics, because their belief is not worldly. Instead, the faithful must rely on what they do understand, their relationship to the deity, because they cannot suffer loss. To the faithful, the code a Knight follows is a temptation, but must be rejected for their duty to the deity.
In this way, a person of ethical virtue and a person of faith are distinct. What one does on faith does not rely on the ethical, and what one does on the ethical is not faith.
Let us examine this further and consider a dutiful Knight to a faithful person; these two would be difficult to tell apart in a normal life. Both would help those in need, both serve dutifully in their community, both maintain a poise that separates themselves from others, but there is something the Knight lacks that the faithful have.
When a Knight, in their struggle, lays their everything for their duty; their safety, their happiness, their wealth, their honor, when they are called for the Knight only loses. The truly dutiful would give everything they have, and they accept the loss, because it is their duty.
The faithful do lose as well, but something is different. A faithful man could venture home with the mindset that a wonderful roast, made by his wife, will be waiting for him at home, despite not having the means to afford such a thing. He might give the last of his regals to a beggar on the street and wish him well, and continue his merry way, now poorer than the beggar was. The faithful man might carry the load of a struggling worker, sharing in the strife for no benefit, and be happy all the while.
Here again we see the absurdity of faith within loss, that a Knight can give all he has until he has nothing left but his life, the faithful can do the same but regain something. For them, this something is everything, an entirety of their being, that the Everwatch will provide for them. Through a movement of faith, a faithful person's loss is never all they have to give. The Knight who makes sacrifices is a tragic hero and wept for, but the faithful person we, curiously, do not.
If the person has faith, such as the parent, the loss of their only child is not a loss in entirety such as the Knight. The movement of faith is done so with the mindset that the child will be returned to them, despite the absurdity. The Knight can make no such leap, and therefore falls short, distinguishing itself once more.
The Celery, and religion, has widely failed to provide faith for the people because it acts as a worldly wisdom; it acts as the Knight and not the faithful. The comfort the Celery provides is a worldly one, in the form of alms, sermons, hymns, confessions, all comforts to those in need but not of faith. Going to the temple to pray, congregations, singing, rules and order established by the Celery are all culture, laws, rules, customs, not faith. When one goes to pray for absolution from their sins, they beg the Celate for forgiveness and not the Everwatch. When one is starving and requires alms, it is said the alms house provides and not the Everwatch. When prayer is made in a temple, the Celate speaks what the others should repeat and not what they wish to say to the Everwatch. The Celacy tries to convey faith to people, tries to teach the good of the Everwatch, but it tries to explain the otherworldly in a worldly way. It then ceases to be about faith and becomes only about the world. When offerings and donations are made on behalf of the faith, it is done so to the church, not the Everwatch.
The failings of the pagans proves that faith cannot be made worldly. To those that follow the Old Gods, they see their religion in the world around them. The wind through the trees, the calm of a lake, the rain and snow are attributed to a God; they are entirely worldly and require no faith. When the pagans seek clarity in their faith, they look to the world, and what they see is entirely worldly, but the faithful do not see their faith this way.
To a faithful person, their connection to the Everwatch is entirely personal. A faithful person cannot explain their faith, like the story of the parent, because it is absurd. No one can understand it fully, otherwise like the people who only understand religion and the pagans their world view is their religion, and it ceases to be faith but instead the laws and customs and traditions and practices of that religion, and not to the Everwatch.
Ethics can be conveyed, the virtues of a Knight can be conveyed, as can laws and customs and rules and habits and so on. Faith cannot be explained or understood, because it remains entirely personal between the faithful and the Everwatch. Their understanding is one that can be made by no other.
If it is true that we, the faithless, cannot understand the faith, and it cannot be described to us, then what are we to do? How can we find faith when it makes no sense, when we must not know in certainty? We can only surmise the understanding is so deeply rooted in the otherworldly that no part of it belongs in our world, besides the faithful themselves, and regardless of faith or not, the fact that we are all wrong in the eyes of the Everwatch. Let this be our point of understanding.
We, all of us, you and I, the parent and the child, the Knight and the faithful, are all wrong; such is the side effect of free will, the gift of the Everwatch. Two people of worldly being cannot be correct to one another, that is to say, their relationship will always have a point of misunderstanding. One, no matter how intimate the relationship is, cannot understand another fully. A child will never fully understand their parent, and vice versa, the criminal or the guard, the judge or celate. There is only one relationship that we know to be true, and that is ourselves and the Everwatch; we are always wrong, and the Everwatch is always right. As the Everwatch is all-powerful, it must be right in the world it created, and the fact that we do not know where we belong, what we must do, our freedom of thought granted by the Everwatch, means we must always be wrong otherwise we were never free. In all other relationships we have in our world, there are none we can understand as well as the relationship we have with the Everwatch, and this we should take comfort and guidance from. We do not know ourselves compared to others, but we know we are wrong; the best we can do is strive to do right through faith, conflicted internally if what we do is right or not in an otherworldly sense. We should not be steadfast and hold to every belief, but to think and take steps of faith in doing what we believe is right.
His Imperial Holiness bears this burden which He cannot speak of, a relationship to the Everwatch we cannot grasp, and which He cannot explain in a worldly way, as those God Emperors and God Empress have in the past, whose wisdom may not be able to be communicated to us, but faith is assuredly present within them, as is the Everwatch.
A faithful person can tell us nothing about faith, because it cannot be taught. It is not a generational lesson that children can pick up when we die and go beyond; faith requires a passion, an engagement, to experience it. In this way, we are all equal, because it is not granted upon birth. It must be experienced to be understood, as there are no other means to comprehend faith, and a faithful person would be forced to employ an irony of saying something that means nothing, or say nothing at all.
~Custos Silentii
I return to my silence eternal, or perhaps not, or perhaps never again. I ask the Everwatch not for guidance, as it has given me the choice, and I pray only that I make movements of faith as the faithful I seek would. To the readers who have finished my broken dam of ramblings, take to heart my concerns. I do not damn you, as you are free, but I do ask you to seek faith, and not simply meaningless religion. Until the next of my ramblings, or to silence again, I do not know; it is a story for the dying.
---== | Nihil| ==---
I swore to silence, or I have tried to, or I have seemed to. Among my peers, I seem to be renown for it, despite never attesting to it. It is not a reputation I desire, but I cannot speak to the world; screaming on the mountaintops or from the bell tower of a cathedral- no, this is unbecoming of me. I put my quill to paper now, the blade I wield with sorrow, to perform my affair of honor for the sake of the Everwatch.
Many Unionists, whether they be the common man or one of the cloth, lack faith. Most, in fact, do; I myself, despite my service to the Everwatch, do not believe I have faith. I would swing my blade so far as to say the entirety of the Celery could be observed and not a single faithful person to be found; none amidst my peers, nor myself. But I believe people of faith exist, somewhere, and I beg all to follow them, to watch and observe them, to cross the entire Archipelago for simply the chance to see them and make the wildest discovery- they are almost indistinguishable from the rest of us, besides faith; the distinction remains, however subtle, from logic and ethics.
I do not make this claim without evidence, without certainty in my mind, and I lay before you, to your eyes and all who read, why I say so.
---== |I: The Absurdity of Faith | ==---
Let us presume a voice echoes in the ears of a parent, who would declare that the world is in dire need, that through some means unbeknownst to all others, the seed of disorder is somehow sowed, and sacrifice is required. The voice, in exchange for the child's life, the parent's one and only, shall restore the world in entirety and furthermore shall make the child a great leader amongst men.
This deal is absurd, and those that would accept it without question we deem insane and ethically so. Most would refuse, as is ethically sound to do. But there is a certain kind of person, one who acts in faith, that heeds the words, conflicts themselves, and finally decides to act upon it with doubt still in their mind. These are the people who make movements of faith.
The example I have provided is clearly absurd; a child cannot become a great leader if it has been sacrificed, but people of faith are, essentially, absurd or paradoxical, nonsensical to us because their understanding cannot be conveyed. The God Emperor Theomar wrote proudly his declaration of Unionism conveyed to him by the Everwatch, not unlike the voice heard by the parent. The Everwatch gifted us free will to choose, and it was likely to much conflict in his mind, doubt and concern for his people, the many considerations that must be made and the risk of their existence, that Theomar wrote his creeds, and glory followed. The God Empress Ness forgave those who assassinated her children, one could imagine with great difficulty to overcome, something we would declare mad for others, but we hold to high esteem in regard to Her. In more recent events, the massacre of the Songaskian civilians, a violent act, unthinkable to many, but swiftly brought peace to a nation that seemed ready to fight to the death; a decision not made without conflict, and with no guarantee of success. These examples of conflicted action, made with a paradox or absurdity inherent call to question whether or not they are logical, or even if they are faith. All of these decisions must have been difficult, drawing conflict to the mind, yet were done with a wisdom unspoken, one we now praise.
Acts of faith cannot be explained, because to explain them is to make them worldly, logical, rationale, ethical; it ceases to be faith, and instead becomes routine or culture or courtesy or common sense, not faith. People who act on their religion with no doubt in their mind are acting with as much faith as those who lack religion entirely; if one sees the world through their religion, it has ceased to be faith but instead only become their reality. They do not act with the Everwatch's gift of free will, because their mind is concluded; they have no conflict, there is no faith to enact because their decision has already been made by their religion, not by their will.
It should be said, then, that either one believes faith exists and the parent has a decision to make, or that faith has never existed, because to kill the child is immoral and faith is no consideration one should make.
---== | II: The Righteous and the Faith | ==---
The Knight's actions come from code, an adherence to action via sworn vow, but the faithful person has no such vow, only their faith, which can show another separation. Change the parent to a Knight of virtue, and they cannot sacrifice the child, because they swore to defend the weak and defenseless. If a Knight even intended to engage in the sacrifice, they could not lie if asked about it. If they spoke the truth of their intent, then one might think them mad, or if it was a deity asking for the sacrifice, others might lose all trust in the deity, crushing hope.
If the Knight chose to carry the burden of blame, then again it is not an act of faith. If they choose to sacrifice the child for no reason, the absurdity of their own design, then they are truly mad because they have no such ability to resolve the disorder like the deity. If they chose to sacrifice the child with the understanding that it is a sacrifice for the greater good, then they do not sacrifice the child for faith, only for their code once more; their decision is ethical, not faith. In each of these cases, an outside observer loses trust in the Knight or the deity, and faith is not present. The Knight is then concluded; either they do not want to and they should not, or they do want to and should do.
The faithful are not beholden to this conflict, however. The faithful cannot tell the truth, because it cannot be explained in a worldly way. Whatever the faithful speaks on the matter would be false in comparison to the true intent, which is illogical and cannot be understood; in this way, they must hide what they are doing, as their connection is an individual one. They make a movement of faith when they engage. Unlike the Knight, what they should do is not made clear by vows or ethics, because their belief is not worldly. Instead, the faithful must rely on what they do understand, their relationship to the deity, because they cannot suffer loss. To the faithful, the code a Knight follows is a temptation, but must be rejected for their duty to the deity.
In this way, a person of ethical virtue and a person of faith are distinct. What one does on faith does not rely on the ethical, and what one does on the ethical is not faith.
---== | III: Loss | ==---
Let us examine this further and consider a dutiful Knight to a faithful person; these two would be difficult to tell apart in a normal life. Both would help those in need, both serve dutifully in their community, both maintain a poise that separates themselves from others, but there is something the Knight lacks that the faithful have.
When a Knight, in their struggle, lays their everything for their duty; their safety, their happiness, their wealth, their honor, when they are called for the Knight only loses. The truly dutiful would give everything they have, and they accept the loss, because it is their duty.
The faithful do lose as well, but something is different. A faithful man could venture home with the mindset that a wonderful roast, made by his wife, will be waiting for him at home, despite not having the means to afford such a thing. He might give the last of his regals to a beggar on the street and wish him well, and continue his merry way, now poorer than the beggar was. The faithful man might carry the load of a struggling worker, sharing in the strife for no benefit, and be happy all the while.
Here again we see the absurdity of faith within loss, that a Knight can give all he has until he has nothing left but his life, the faithful can do the same but regain something. For them, this something is everything, an entirety of their being, that the Everwatch will provide for them. Through a movement of faith, a faithful person's loss is never all they have to give. The Knight who makes sacrifices is a tragic hero and wept for, but the faithful person we, curiously, do not.
If the person has faith, such as the parent, the loss of their only child is not a loss in entirety such as the Knight. The movement of faith is done so with the mindset that the child will be returned to them, despite the absurdity. The Knight can make no such leap, and therefore falls short, distinguishing itself once more.
---== | IV: The Worldly Failings | ==---
The Celery, and religion, has widely failed to provide faith for the people because it acts as a worldly wisdom; it acts as the Knight and not the faithful. The comfort the Celery provides is a worldly one, in the form of alms, sermons, hymns, confessions, all comforts to those in need but not of faith. Going to the temple to pray, congregations, singing, rules and order established by the Celery are all culture, laws, rules, customs, not faith. When one goes to pray for absolution from their sins, they beg the Celate for forgiveness and not the Everwatch. When one is starving and requires alms, it is said the alms house provides and not the Everwatch. When prayer is made in a temple, the Celate speaks what the others should repeat and not what they wish to say to the Everwatch. The Celacy tries to convey faith to people, tries to teach the good of the Everwatch, but it tries to explain the otherworldly in a worldly way. It then ceases to be about faith and becomes only about the world. When offerings and donations are made on behalf of the faith, it is done so to the church, not the Everwatch.
The failings of the pagans proves that faith cannot be made worldly. To those that follow the Old Gods, they see their religion in the world around them. The wind through the trees, the calm of a lake, the rain and snow are attributed to a God; they are entirely worldly and require no faith. When the pagans seek clarity in their faith, they look to the world, and what they see is entirely worldly, but the faithful do not see their faith this way.
To a faithful person, their connection to the Everwatch is entirely personal. A faithful person cannot explain their faith, like the story of the parent, because it is absurd. No one can understand it fully, otherwise like the people who only understand religion and the pagans their world view is their religion, and it ceases to be faith but instead the laws and customs and traditions and practices of that religion, and not to the Everwatch.
Ethics can be conveyed, the virtues of a Knight can be conveyed, as can laws and customs and rules and habits and so on. Faith cannot be explained or understood, because it remains entirely personal between the faithful and the Everwatch. Their understanding is one that can be made by no other.
---== | V: The Otherworldly, and Absolute Duty | ==---
If it is true that we, the faithless, cannot understand the faith, and it cannot be described to us, then what are we to do? How can we find faith when it makes no sense, when we must not know in certainty? We can only surmise the understanding is so deeply rooted in the otherworldly that no part of it belongs in our world, besides the faithful themselves, and regardless of faith or not, the fact that we are all wrong in the eyes of the Everwatch. Let this be our point of understanding.
We, all of us, you and I, the parent and the child, the Knight and the faithful, are all wrong; such is the side effect of free will, the gift of the Everwatch. Two people of worldly being cannot be correct to one another, that is to say, their relationship will always have a point of misunderstanding. One, no matter how intimate the relationship is, cannot understand another fully. A child will never fully understand their parent, and vice versa, the criminal or the guard, the judge or celate. There is only one relationship that we know to be true, and that is ourselves and the Everwatch; we are always wrong, and the Everwatch is always right. As the Everwatch is all-powerful, it must be right in the world it created, and the fact that we do not know where we belong, what we must do, our freedom of thought granted by the Everwatch, means we must always be wrong otherwise we were never free. In all other relationships we have in our world, there are none we can understand as well as the relationship we have with the Everwatch, and this we should take comfort and guidance from. We do not know ourselves compared to others, but we know we are wrong; the best we can do is strive to do right through faith, conflicted internally if what we do is right or not in an otherworldly sense. We should not be steadfast and hold to every belief, but to think and take steps of faith in doing what we believe is right.
His Imperial Holiness bears this burden which He cannot speak of, a relationship to the Everwatch we cannot grasp, and which He cannot explain in a worldly way, as those God Emperors and God Empress have in the past, whose wisdom may not be able to be communicated to us, but faith is assuredly present within them, as is the Everwatch.
A faithful person can tell us nothing about faith, because it cannot be taught. It is not a generational lesson that children can pick up when we die and go beyond; faith requires a passion, an engagement, to experience it. In this way, we are all equal, because it is not granted upon birth. It must be experienced to be understood, as there are no other means to comprehend faith, and a faithful person would be forced to employ an irony of saying something that means nothing, or say nothing at all.
~Custos Silentii
---== | VI: Postscriptum Conclusionem | ==---
I return to my silence eternal, or perhaps not, or perhaps never again. I ask the Everwatch not for guidance, as it has given me the choice, and I pray only that I make movements of faith as the faithful I seek would. To the readers who have finished my broken dam of ramblings, take to heart my concerns. I do not damn you, as you are free, but I do ask you to seek faith, and not simply meaningless religion. Until the next of my ramblings, or to silence again, I do not know; it is a story for the dying.
