PowerOfLogic/821 04208364 E61

I have been neglectful of these thought records over the last few months, though the reader should not believe that this is due to a lack of events worth discussing. Rather, the contrary conclusion is true, as sundry metaphysical, demiurgic, nugatory, ethical, stygian, philosophical, etc. concerns have prevented sufficient opportunity for reflection and evaluation of events. The life of a god, it seems, is a busy one, and a cmoplicated affair. To adequately describe every ordeal of the last three months would require approximately as much time as the events took to transpire, depending on where the perspective of the audience determines the significant digits to end. Rather, one must merely detail the most significant occurrences and then fill in relevant details as they relate to the events thus far described. Beginning [i]in media res[/i] like this may risk the glossing over of some events only tangentially related to the chosen topic, but if your humble author chooses the central turning correctly, and I have confidence in my choosing, as should you, then any events unrelated are likely of little importance to one of my Noble stature, and unlikely to be of interest to any theoretical audience this document may find.

Due to actions of my brother, the [Lord of the Fries], my [most esteemed Lord] has determined the foremost tenet of his ethical code. This event would be quite laudable, if not for the fact that the axiom as set down is "Love is the highest principle." Such an aphorism seems not to bother the rest of the familia, for understandable reasons, but it worries me greatly, for as [Barclay] observed, "He that louyth is voyde of all reason." Using an assumption so inherently opposed to my domain might cause significant problems, particularly once the observer considers that [Prasinos] is Logic, in a quite literal way beyond the level where I am, or any eidolon of my dominion is, a manifestation of Logic.

Beyond these concerns, this decisions has placed our entire chancel in direct opposition with the Darkest Lord, who has declared love to be forbidden. This, also, worries me, though in a different manner. One wonders how fully this opposition will go, and how blatant we should be about our lord's rebbelious acts. It occurs to me that if we are to have a full scale conflict with Lord Entropy, which is a frightening prospect as I have no idea if we would survive such a conflict, then we should take whatever advantage opposition to Entropy provides. For example, our plans for Norway may be moot. More interestingly, though, is that the defiance of Entropy's laws provides a solution for the rebellious nature of the chancel's inhabitants. Currently, they desire a more democratic governmental system, which I would be happy to provide them if not for the Grim King's law that states "Treat no beast as your lord." After a schism from the King of this world, we could establish a constitutional theocracy, such that the inhabitants are granted more political power in the chancel, and we give up some level of power over them politically. At the extreme opposite our current position, the assembled Powers of our Familia would have no political power over the inhabitants, merely raw metaphysical power which would be contracted out by the elected representatives of the inhabitants. That is, we would leave the mundane chancelfolk to their own devices, to descend into crime or be slaughtered by Excrucians unless they make a compelling offer to us as to services they would grant us in exchange for use of our godlike might. This system would clearly be far from ideal, but less so than the current contumacious character of the populace. I would, obviously, prefer to keep as much power as I can, but it seems the best and most ethical way to keep them populace pleased is to establish a system of checks and balances, perhaps with different branches established by representatives of the inhabitants, Powers and Saraswati, as outlined in some sort of constitution.

It occurs to me that "constitutional theocracy" is the wrong term, being that theocracy has already been co-opted by government by priests, as opposed to government by gods, which is its literal definition. Perhaps another term then, such as deocracy, or hagiocracy. Ambrotocracy? Hosiocracy? Ouranocratic? Cthoniocratic? Perhaps some member of anotther chancel can tell me of preestablished nomenclature.