The Fractal of Unquestionable Answers

On dialog, doctrine, and dogma. Yes, dogma, which is not a four-letter word.

For what are you willing to die?
Some are willing to set themselves on fire, perhaps to make a point. Others are willing to do battle, perhaps to protect their own.

For what are you willing to live?
If you gain scars from trials and bitter experiences but live to tell the tale, you will be much more useful to yourself and those around you.

The Fractal of Unanswerable Questions is the sum of all forms of inquiry, spreading outward in a branching fashion through coitus, that is, questions and answers, and conflict, that is blood-moon dialectics.

The Fractal of Unquestionable Answers differs, yet it is vital. It is bounded at the edges but porous. Instead of spreading outward, inquiry moves inward toward a center of gravity. At the periphery, inward-turning questions and answers are oriented to converge, making a core. So, the closer those questions and answers get to the core, the more questions start to fall away, like time near an event horizon. Likewise, propositions and their negations are reconciled in sublations. Time slows as flux slows. At the core, there are only answers that, though not absolute, are relatively more timeless.

These serve as fundamental answers to the questions:

For what are we willing to die?
For what are we willing to live?

The Fractal of Unquestionable Answers is the raison d’etre of our order.

From the outside in, we go from dialog to doctrine to dogma. Yet, we are not dogmatic. Dialog offers us opportunities to transition beliefs carefully in and out of the core. Doctrine is the liminal space of practice, where we temper our beliefs in the forge of experience. But once sufficiently annealed, our beliefs live at the core, nee, as the core.

That is our dogma.