Ayn Rand, Aleister Crowley and Anarchism

First, it is best with these three in the title to explain some common misunderstandings:

Ayn Rand was not an advocate for selfishness in the way that term is normally used. Selfishness normally implies self-obsession and a disregard for other people. Diametrically opposed, Ayn Rand's conception is that of self love as a means to aid them.

Aleister Crowley was not a Satanist. Never once was he involved in anything relating to it. He was denounced "the wickedest man in the world" for being an individualist social critic. As I and many others are that as well, it is essentially impossible for me to sympathize with the claim.

Anarchists do not universally ascribe to the belief that:
A) Government should be stopped by force
B) No law should exist
I ascribe to neither of these. There are also many varieties of anarchism insofar as it is conceived, and mine is significantly different from most.

One way to interpret the blend of these three is as a suggestion that we should do anything, absolutely anything, and think only about ourselves as we tear apart society. Another is as a suggestion that we should be self-actualized beings in a free world. So you see, judging a book by its cover is for the very shallow-minded.

Interesting, on that note, to ask: why do people judge books by their covers? One suggestion is that people are irrational and impulsive. Another is that they are drawn in by the consumerist dogma of the West. Another still is that all people are brainwashed by advertisement. Perhaps we should consider the fourth: some people are shallow-minded.

These terms need very adequate descriptions: 'irrational' means that man is not out to serve his own interests, which is demonstrably false. 'Drawn in' suggests that an active force is weighing on people to do things, and we'll discuss this possibility momentarily. 'Brainwashed' entails a complete overhaul of logic by way of repeat suggestion, and this is silly. People wouldn't need the assurances of low prices if their heads weren't programmed to respond in that logical manner.

'Drawn in' is an interesting concept. What does it mean? On some level it is akin to brainwashing in this context: displacing logic with repeated suggestions. In this case, it would be the repeated suggestion to consume opposing the logical response of not consuming as much. One reason we don't have to suspect this is that there is already great incentive to collect wealth in human beings, wherever they live and whatever they do. People need food to survive and want comforts to thrive. Everything in the market is geared exactly towards these wants. Whatever it is that people decided they wanted out of life, insofar as that relates to anything that can be sold, the market will produce it under the right conditions. So, to say that people wouldn't consume as much as they do is only to suggest that there isn't so much that can actually be sold that people should actually want. Given what a wide range there is of sellable products, everything from ideas to books to music to food to drugs to housing and so on, not to mention pets and children and influence over other people's actions, that's a hard one to swallow. Consider that what you're reading right now is information being transferred to you - a process that could only take place with a computer you own. If you wanted to take all the other information out there and condense it into just the right sorts that you need, you'd have to pay for the services of people who teach you. If you still wanted to know more, you could talk over ideas with individuals in person, meetings which take place more frequently with the use of a car. To transmit those ideas to others, you may need to pay a publishing company to send a book out into the world, and an editor to make those ideas as succinct as can be. You'd need the services of a movie production company or a radio host if you wanted to distribute the information in other ways, or perhaps the permission of a popular magazine or newspaper owner. To read the words of those in other languages, one will have to pay for the services of a translator. The list goes on, with the point that even sending ideas to each other is a service that can be sold, and insofar as you consider that valuable, as judged by the fact that you are reading my words right now, the market can sell things for people to consume on a very wide scale and to very large degrees absent entirely from the influence of others' dogma.

Keep in mind that to suggest that there are better things that cannot be sold has no influence on this suggestion. Whatever it is that people can buy, they will buy, insofar as that betters themselves, whether or not there also happen to be other things they can't.

This does not suggest that there is no possibility that "consumerist dogma" has an effect on people, but given that the silent world already tells us to consume in more ways than it could ever be said, we have no reason to suspect as much.

If we can safely eliminate other possibilities, I propose that which forms the center of my message today: shallow-mindedness.

First, let's distinguish this from irrationality.

Irrational thinking is hard to define, probably because it doesn't exist. It can be surmised with the theoretical idea that perhaps thoughts form in people's heads and don't actually string together coherently, but that's not something anyone with a brain can easily fathom. Obviously some people are stupid, but that's very different from suggesting they are irrational. The thoughts they do think have the explicit purpose of bettering themselves and their circumstances, or at least those of others, and anything else can't easily be defined as "thinking."

An irrational person might be a child, as far as one is concerned, as a child does not heed the parents' warnings to buckle their seat belts, brush their teeth or go to bed on time. In actuality, that is explained much better by the concept that they do not see the need for these things, and form their own conclusions, rationally, on the basis of what they do know. They know that the seatbelt is constricting, the toothpaste is gross, and that playing games with friends is a lot more fun than going to bed early. So, they're thinking. They just don't have all the information at hand.

People are always making judgements on the basis of certain facts and uncertain possibilities. To say that this is irrational isn't saying much, as it isn't 'ir'-anything. But to point out that the conclusions people draw for the purpose of increasing welfare use reason and are often adequate is something worth giving a name, and we call that rationality.

Shallow-mindedness is something altogether different. It is looking at the mind as having another dimension aside from intelligence, allowing for deepness - a term people already use for describing thoughts that examine the nature of the universe in some form as opposed to thoughts that do not. It is another dimension as it relates to everyone directly, unlike chemistry or physics or even economics. You can know not those sciences and still be fine with the aid of specialists who examine their contents, but philosophical reasoning is something only you can determine for yourself. No one can give you its results. You must take the whole thing or else leave it all behind. This is because, as Socrates put it, knowledge is distinct from right opinion in the sense that it is 'tied down.' One can only have a fleeting truth if they hold it to be true by opinion, but something lasting and meaningful when they draw the conclusion for themselves. Deep people don't have to be good at putting their conclusions into words, because these realizations often come through insight rather than intellect. But three stoners sitting around a fire will awe at the "deep" words produced when they know that someone has blended his insight with the ability to phrase it.

Really, this is the other dimension we're talking about: insight. It's a dimension of the mind because it is in the nature of the mind, just as intelligence. When one proposes an idea, his ability to relate it to what he considers reality can be described as his intelligence, whilst the accuracy of his perception as to what reality is can be regarded as his insight.

A person can be both rational and shallow. A claim I make here is that all people are rational (except for infants and the mentally handicapped). A person can be both intelligent and shallow, though not really deep and stupid, as insight usually reveals that which allows one to increase their mental capacity. An example of this would be the realization that worries are baseless and acceptance is key, allowing one to refocus their energies on schoolwork and study whilst clearing their mind of wasteful thinking and by so doing become smarter in some way.

Intelligence and smartness differ in some ways, according to how they are defined. Including information held in smartness, while intelligence usually refers to something like processing power and analytical reasoning, makes a stark difference. Either way, it's baseless to call deep people stupid, whoever they are, as insights allow one to restructure their mind in a way that allows it to process more quickly as well as store and acquire more information by means of proper action.

It is key to become deep. Judging a book by its cover will be used here as a prime example. Simply put, when a man is concerned only with entertainment, he will successfully accomplish his goal by confirming that a book has warriors and cyclopses. But if he acknowledges other factors that contribute to his happiness, such as lessons learned and characters with which he sympathizes, the book takes on new meaning and he sets new standards for his books, which go beyond that which he can test by but a glimpse at the cover. These new benefits are usually stronger than the entertainment factor, on top of being more lasting, and are held by everyone in some form, but usually disregarded as irrelevant by-products that cannot be chosen or determined beforehand. Becoming deep means acknowledging these benefits as real, and more real than mindless entertainment, as well as being things that can be willed into one's life.

Castle in the Sky is a movie by Hayao Miyazaki, creator of Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, My Neighbor Totoro and many others. His movie influenced me in profound ways, and I was pretty sure it would because so many of his others have done the same. In it, general Muoro is a stalwart, stout man whose goal is to direct an Army and push his forces to victory against impossible odds. He relies on his machine - the airship Goliath - to defeat even the most terrible of robotic enemies. His courage marked me. He lost, and still won. He was angry and fierce, and yet his actions were purposed. Much of the way a character marks you can't be described, or requires incredible detail and a mastery of words. I can tell you one thing: it is the man who fights in the end like he fought at the start that has a part of my heart.

A couple scenes in particular of Muoro stand out to me in a memory that functions as easily as a shattered vase. Memorizing is ineffective for me because it is rare for me to remember things, but useful in the sense that I keep the gold and leave the rest behind, sifting through it. When the general shoots at an advanced hologram of his enemy - a rival who betrayed him and took control of the most powerful city in the sky - Muoro represents courage against the unknown. When all that is around him crumbles into a sea of mysterious magic, he fights as though nothing had changed. He intimidates the enemy who outperforms him on a transcendental level, as only the bravest in life can do.

In the scene where he meets the enemy for the first time, a robot with lasers and wings and metal unmatched, the general holds his ground. He utilizes every last defense with the awareness that his technology is capable under his guidance of destroying the unknown. Muoro represents the knowledge that all the mysteriousness of the world is measurable. That even the most fierce of enemies in the most strange of scenarios is conquerable. That the unknown is known.

Something critical to the understanding of the universe is that any truly unknowns negate all knowledge. If one thing had properties that were entirely unknown to a mind, the mind would know nothing, as these properties could always contradict others. Thus, by knowing anything, we establish certain truths about everything, even if limited only to the fact that everything co-exists and so is not contradictory to the things we know. This can be expanded, however, to something much larger. If a thing is unknown, there are no knowns, and, thus, we know everything if we know anything.

This is contrary to basic intuition and the process of reasoning, as one will see a circle and know only, about all other things, that they do not occupy the same space. However, if there remained properties of those other things that were unknown, those would be things themselves, which cannot be truly unknown lest the circle is not known either. The argument can be presented simply: known is defined as 'that which cannot be contradicted,' unknown is defined as 'that about which nothing is known;' thus, an unknown may contradict anything, meaning that when one has an unknown, he cannot know. Where this argument leads is too deep and involved for this post, but it is meant to illustrate a simple point: our knowledge is something special. Special in the sense that it cannot be understood by us, nor can it be explained using the language we possess. However, it implies something grand about our capabilities and information. This is most easily explained - as the information is seemingly utilized in a functional manner - as that which we attain from a source of all knowledge, of which we are a part. Courage stems from this understanding, and as unintellectual as it by definition is, it is that which one attains through that other dimension of the mind entirely, that insight that allows us to grow in more ways than the mind has the capability to fathom. Quixotic as that is, it is the truth.

How do we become deep?

The surest way to attain deepness is to believe it exists. One of the shallowest conclusions a shallow person can draw is that they cannot go any deeper or that there is nowhere deeper to go. An easy examination of the power of our minds and the mysteriousness of the universe when examined even at rudimentary levels dispels this, but many are not even willing to do as much. Philosophy holds an important place in the mind of every man, and few are willing to take the call.

When one takes the call, certain things become apparent. The nature of knowledge becomes a question, and what knowledge one holds an equally important one. Fundamental knowledge becomes a curious matter. Action and whether or not one is free to do as he likes become topics of inquiry. One's purpose is revealed. And, above all, one accepts a mind as something that is to some degree confusing.

Purpose amounts to doing what you will. "Do what thou wilt," as Aleister Crowley wrote, he claiming to have interpreted it from an angel, much as any religion creator. Though that he claims merely to have heard this voice from inside and written it down as something divine is not unusual to many, and makes perfect sense with the acknowledgement that the divine is connected to us and influences our thoughts. Our understanding of the statement that this being was named "Aiwass" and was a "being" can be explained more acutely by negative theology, which is to say, an acceptance of the divine as being beyond our description, and Crowley's explanation as a sort of 'imperfect reconstruction.'

The next way to become deeper is to realize your own potential. One of the best ways to do start this is to love yourself. People who hate themselves are guaranteed stunted progress in favor of getting by with an appeal to those things which stimulate them in the most basic way possible. In short, inward reflection is one's only tool to examine the mind in all its splendor, and self-haters wish not to think about themselves, which is clearly required.

Becoming deep allows us to find the role God has in store for each of us. Then, by will, you do that. All of the benefits are aligned exactly with the oughts, and all of the oughts are aligned exactly with one's actions. Because God wants you to be free, the only way you can fail is by imprisoning yourself: ethical statements will remain aligned with your actions, but your heart will sink in your chest. You will feel somehow unfit for the actions you make, even though you are, and even though what you do is what you're supposed to be doing. This is all the case until your mind comes to the realization, through understanding reality, that your actions are good, allowing the blanket of faith to lay over those actions whose purpose you cannot glean; a faith held by the continual finding of goodness in your actions when you examine them on deeper levels, and by the very fact that by finding goodness, hidden, in many actions you can conclude that goodness lies somewhere in all of them - in the same way that scientists conclude that gravity is everywhere as a result of many experiments that successfully demonstrate its existence in many regions and over many times - despite the break from logic, as defined by some, that is required to make those conclusions.

Ayn Rand points out something rather extraordinary about insight: that men utilize it individually. Undertakings in business, philosophy and art are solely inspired by the mind of an individual. Theoretical worlds in which the collective of man decides what is art, what is good and what is bad become subject to the lowest common denominator: the intellect of the unspecialized majority. If art is not based on individual appeal, but that which the government, democratically elected, purchases for its shoddy museums, we get: "abstract" - that which offends no one, God forbid someone sues, because it is not actually art (a milder position being that, at least, other art forms are underproduced). If the laws of a country are determined in this way, we get "clean air act," because no one wants "dirty air" - that the individual is willing to pay for an optimal level of pollution is out of the question. More importantly, laws become subject to the general opinion. I differ from Ayn Rand here, but hold resolutely to the claim that law should be a competitive product, sold on the marketplace, such that every man could suit his own needs, rather than have the "needs" of others - anything they can get away with as they aren't paying the cost - forced upon him.

What this amounts to is the claim that people who are insightful and intelligent are more inclined to certain preferences differing from those had by those who are shallow and/or stupid. In combination with differences in preference had for totally unrelated reasons concerning products (flavor preference, color preference, means of entertainment preference (in part), style preference, house preference, location preference, legal preference, etc.) of various sorts, individual desire differs starkly from one human being to the next, and declarations of needs by the collective of man will always be insufficient.

Let's cut to the chase with Anarchism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is:
A) One prediction of Anarchism
B) Entirely unrelated to which laws are beneficial and which laws are not

The second is usually misunderstood. Libertarianism correlates with Anarcho-Capitalism, but is an entirely different animal. As Anarcho-Capitalist economist (son of Milton Friedman) David Friedman describes: whether or not Anarcho-Capitalism leads to a libertarian society "remains to be proven." It is libertarian in the sense that government is abolished, but not necessarily so in the sense that laws produced by the market would be any less restricting than those produced by the government. We can predict as much given our circumstances, but by no means is Anarcho-Capitalism defined this way.

Anarcho-Capitalism is the suggestion that law - a product - be produced by the market. The advantage is that the costs and benefits of law would be directly tied to the material loss or gain of the territorial owner who instates them. This is a fundamental economic principle: that when benefits and costs are tied to an individual, he will produce the optimal result as he produces the optimal result for himself.

Again, this is not libertarian necessarily. If some laws are good, those laws will be produced. If other laws are bad, they will not be produced. As David Friedman puts it: "if the value of a law to its supporters is less than its cost to its victims, that law...will not survive in an anarcho-capitalist society."

A government run by politicians is subject to their individual desires. Whether that be to make their mark in history, obtain good press, be loved by the people, be as famous as possible, or make money by bribes (which come in a thousand different flavors), they will act in a way that is disconnected entirely from the interests of the people they rule. The economy goes down, they place the blame elsewhere. The economy goes up, the praise themselves. The war ends, they praise themselves. The war begins, they justify its necessity. The money supply heavily increases without a corresponding rise in wealth, resulting in detrimental inflation - don't worry about that. The government has its reasons.

Never once do they put their money where their mouth is.

The market is just the opposite. When a business goes sour, its owner pays the price. Bad luck is tough luck - and there's nothing to hide behind when they're to blame. Price is too high? Business is shoddy? Welcome to a life with no customers. What they want - the people - is what you must provide, or you will fail. That means if Joe wants 'x' and Jonny wants 'y', there will be multiple businesses producing both - well. This is because there's money to be had, that the business owner makes himself, for providing what others want.

Economists today debate about all kinds of things from minimum wage laws to tariffs to rent control (On the latter two there is widespread agreement in favor of their abolishment, while the former is something for which there are mixed opinions). As a libertarian, I'd say odds are good that all three are detrimental. Minimum wage laws prevent mutually-beneficial exchanges for jobs of a lower value, eliminating potential workers from those jobs and the products they would produce (which is why minimum wage is strongly linked to unemployment); tariffs reduce competition from overseas producers and allow prices to remain artificially high in nations that produce certain products more expensively, causing a misallocation of labor away from its most profitable uses (think grapes grown in land A, where people more easily grow bananas, and bananas grown in land B, where people more easily grow grapes - because buying grapes in land A from those who produce it cheaply in land B comes with a tax that makes it more expensive still than buying those grapes from land A grape growers, and the same with bananas); rent control creates a shortage of rented housing as the demand for the product rises with a lower price whilst the supply shrinks for the same reason, meaning that people are left homeless. But none of that has to do with anarcho-capitalism. Some rules will make a region a more desirable place in which to live, meaning the owner can raise his prices whilst the masses are pleased, and other rules will have the opposite effect - a team of specialists, with the incentive to figure out which rules are which, will decide properly.

Let's sketch out a possible Anarcho-Capitalist society to make sense of this:

Simply put, imagine smaller regions than nations owned by corporations. The corporation in each region establishes a price for purchasing a home in its region, and establishes a contract for living there, amounting to "abide by these rules, or we will do this."

It's that simple. And imagining that inter-regional law wouldn't be any easier than international law is useless. Nations have to make deals without any conception of the cost, in a way that appeals to the public and in a way that makes history. Those are their incentives. If they don't pan out, it's war. Regions would deal peacefully - any two fighting being extremely detrimental to both in the face of competitors - and agree easily on a cost, a single cost, money, no dick-measuring required, for any legal necessity.

If a 20-year-old can conceive a version of anarchism that functions better than government, whether or not you hop on board, have the foresight to imagine the value of the version made by hundreds of thousands of incentivized professionals when push comes to shove.

The government can be likened to a giant beast that grows larger to a point of being unstoppable. As it is still growing to that point, it must cloud the minds of those who may take action against it and make them docile. Control the media, feed the intellectuals with subsidies, make big speeches, pretend to be enlightened, claim that God Himself is your sanctioning force. People could pledge allegiance to your flag before they know what it represents, for example. As it amounts to, simply, people don't care to learn about politics or the alternative to government because they aren't personally incentivized to do so. The anarcho-capitalist holds maybe one spot on the ballot and you've never heard of him, and even if he does and you did, he won't win. Anyone you vote for, big or small, isn't going to win by one vote, anyway, so your political misunderstanding makes no difference to you. Welcome to the life of the imprisoned - both in mind and body.

If education wasn't public and was allowed to operate in the marketplace, if information transfer expanded as a result of technological progress through economic increase and if products all over the world became cheaper as people became richer, we'd have peace on top of easier deepness.

How to: Mind Control

Mind control is very real. This article is not for the type of skeptic who sees the evidence from a laboratory as divine and "if p then q, p, q" as metaphysical nonsense.

In other words, I'm going to tell you how it works, I'm going to tell you why it works, and I'm going to give you a yet-to-be-seen metaphysical proof for its existence and power, without providing a single peer-reviewed article. Please enjoy.

And please read the article. Otherwise, it will not make sense to you. I'm going to make it as nice and simple as I possibly can, just for you.

MIND CONTROL. What does it mean? As I will explain, it's not what you think. To start this explanatory process, we'll begin with the first rule of my metaphysic:

1. No ego can be coerced.

We're not talking toaster waffles here. And we're not talking about coercion with guns, either. An ego is what you are. It's what I am. For those who don't know, metaphysics is entirely concerned with the nature of being, so we're going to get down to the nitty-gritty details.

What are you? Are you your body? - head, arms, legs, hands and feet? Or maybe you are your brain? - all the neurons and particles that make it up? Tell me, what if you lose an arm? What if half your brain is surgically removed from out of your head? (Yes, it has happened.) Are you still you? Of course you are. What else would you be? :)

No, you are not your body, nor your brain. You are a perceiving, thinking and acting entity. You are an atom, in the Greek sense (something that is indivisible). You do not exist at a location, you exist outside of space. You are not perceivable, not thinkable, and not coercible. In other words, you have existence and a volition that is only yours.

2. No ego can be visualized.

You can not be seen, smelled, tasted or touched, and you cannot be visualized. I can visualize, "in my head" (but not really in anything), your body, or your brain - but I cannot visualize you, nor can you visualize yourself! This is because visualization happens in space - a person's mental space (which, as I will explain, is all the space there is) - and you are not in it! This will become very important later as we discuss what properties make something a creation (hint: being visualized is a big one.).

This should give some insight as to why no ego can be coerced. You can force the movement of my arm, but you cannot force the action of my will. You can move my body, but you cannot move me. After all, being outside of space, I don't move.

I'm sure there are a bunch of questions popping up in your head right now, least of which: "how is this relevant?" All I can ask is that you be patient - all will be explained.

3. All things are perceptions.

Allow us to consider the nature of things. A table, for instance. What makes up the existence of the table? You see it, you feel it, and you can perhaps smell or taste it if you wish. In other words, it exists as sensations. Seeing, feeling, touching, tasting and smelling are all perceptions, and the table is ultimately reducible to only these. If it were reducible to something else, you would not perceive it, and it would, thus, not be an aspect of the table.

4. There is a dualism of existence.

Now, I say things, but I categorize these as being outside the category of egos, which are not sensations. Egos cannot be reduced to any simpler form (thus, an "atom."). Here we acknowledge a dualism of existence: egos and things, or, egos and perceptions (or sensations). No sensation is reducible to "ego" and no ego is reducible to sensation (it is an entity of sensing). They are wholly different.

Just to get this straight, remember that your body is sensations, while you are an ego. That means that you are wholly different from your body.

 5. The world was created by an ego.

As you can easily attest to, the ego may produce thoughts "ex nihilo" - from nothing. Just as you can visualize a table, so other egos can create objects in space. But there are two great differences between your visualized table and the tables you do not visualize. The latter are of a far superior quality, and they also are not of your making. But that does not mean another did not make them. Indeed, a far more powerful mind than yours - a God, we'll call this creator - produced from his thought the tables you see just as you produce tables from your own thinking. There are two ways we know this, and several very important implications that result.

In philosophy, there is a well-known problem of induction proposed by David Hume in the eighteenth century. It states, and correctly, that a knowledge of the present and past does not provide a knowledge of the future. Quite simply, that the apple has fallen from the branch a hundred times before has no bearing on whether or not it will fall an a-hundred-and-first time. And yet, we do predict the future, and are quite successful. We know things about it. The explanation is also simple: God, creator of the things we see, keeps them constant such that we can apply our own interference. Without laws, which are not necessary, but constant by the will of God, we would not be able to use our agency in ways conducive to our own progression. Thus, as we only ever have the past state of affairs as a basis, God establishes the law as a Schelling point by which man can predict the future. (Those more interested on the subject are welcome to talk to me further. I would recommend learning about Schelling points first. :) )

If the world were of a random existence, we could not establish any reason for its staying constant. We would be at a total loss to predict any future event. The problem of induction would literally destroy all inductive reasoning ability, and we would be lost in void.

Furthermore, knowing that the ego and things are of a separate fundamental existence, it is altogether impossible that the happenstance would so arrive that perceptions are made perceivable by various beings, all of which are granted the same perceptions. There is no "link" between your mind and mine - that we both perceive the same things is surely by virtue of an intelligence which desired it.

6. Thought imposition is necessarily possible.

And now we begin our steps toward mind control - first by acknowledging that which God has done to us. God has not only produced visualizations of extraordinary vividness - he has imposed them on your mind and mine. He has visualized His thoughts into our own mental space. God is no fundamentally different from you and I - he is an ego - one that acts, thinks, and perceives, and is relatable to us, building an entire world for the sole purpose of our own progression. This entity, of a fundamental nature no different from you or I, can impose his thoughts into the mind of another.

Can we do the same?

There is no proof that extends further than this, except by your own experimentation. As it happens, we can. Telepathy is the simple process of two egos imposing thoughts in each other's minds, and it is completely doable.

So, what about mind control?

Mind control is no fundamentally different from telepathy. Indeed, it is telepathy - but with a notable twist. Most minds happen to be in a state of total pandemonium. Most people do not have a direction for their lives. It is when you impose a thought as a mind quieter than theirs - as a mind that is obviously purposed and with direction - that they assume it to be a thought of their own, but an extraordinary one, and they obey, without consciously knowing why. This is mind control - an awesome responsibility, with as much potential to do harm as it has to bring great reward. But I extend it to you as an option.

Here is how it is done: visualize a funnel above your body, or above your soul if you can so manage. Visualize another funnel above the body (or soul) of another. Make your mind exceedingly quiet. Now imagine your thought being produced from your head, and coming out of your funnel, then place it into the funnel above the other's head. Watch the results. Keep in mind that the thoughts are not literally entering another's head - as we have already discussed, they are entering the mental space of another entity that has no location, and whose space is inaccessible to you. You are forcing your thoughts into their space by visualizing something meaningful that connects to the understanding you currently have. You must be persistent. The mind grows stronger with practice.

Again I say, mind control is a great responsibility. I advise those who practice it to bear in mind all appropriate ethical considerations, while making sure to have an extraordinary time.

Blessings!

Metaphysical Oneness vs. The Multiple Egos Hypothesis

What I am about to describe is a rift between two metaphysical outlooks, both of which have enthralled me, and one of which I lean toward.

Metaphysical Oneness is the belief that all things are one - that any being is a slice of a whole cherry pie, which is the universe.

The Multiple Egos Hypothesis, as I will call it, is the belief that individual "egos" are totally distinct from one another. An ego, in this context, means a perceiver-actor-thinker - it is you at your most fundamental level, and I at mine - we are each separate egos.

I happen to believe the second of these, though I feel that I am outnumbered in this respect (among metaphysicians).

The key separating factor in this dispute is whether all things can be reduced to a similar substance. Christopher Langan, the world's smartest man, has posited, for example, that all is reducible to "infocognition," which has the dual aspect of perceiving and being perceived, thinking and being thought, acting and being acted upon, but which is a single substance. Underlying all universes, he claims, is an infinite expanse of cognitive potential, which manifests every universe in a way that maximizes the utility function of the infocognition. There is no fundamental difference between you and a toaster.

Many religious metaphysicians believe something similar. The universe, they say, is God, and God extends through creative thinking power. He/She/It produces beings and things, which follow the trademark of Godhood. Nothing is outside God, nothing is without God, All is God - manifested in many forms.

My problem with these is simple: I do not believe that I am an idea. I believe in ideas and idea-creators, thoughts and thinkers, perceptions and perceivers, visualized and visualizers, acted upon and actors - I believe in a fundamental dualism in the universe. I believe that I am an ego, that you are an ego, that there are billions and billions of other egos - each with its own volition - and that together we co-create the visible universe. An ego is not perceivable, thinkable, visualizable, coercible. It creates ideas ex nihilo at the cost of some labor, has existed always and forever will exist.

I think it's an interesting dispute.

A Plea to Libertarians

I speak to you as a fellow Libertarian.

It is the natural instinct of the Libertarian to announce that he has the greatest features of "both sides." From the fascist Republicans he takes the economic freedom, and from the socialist Democrats he takes the social freedom. The result is a kind of man who hates the government and wants nothing to do with the IRS, social security, the military, nor food stamps.

The first problem with this is that the Republicans and Democrats don't actually sponsor either of what has just been suggested. Not in actuality. You can find fringe-members of each party, be it Ron Paul or the Democrat-equivalent, but the party itself, and the units they elect, are much closer to one another than they are to either of the ideals expressed. Economic and social freedom - freedom - is lost to the two-party system.

The second problem is much more complex, and regards how one defines "freedom." Freedom is a buzzword that most are inclined to support, but it doesn't so easily stand behind a single platform in the face of the interpretations of many people. Right-libertarians, like myself, are captialists. That means property establishment, and that means guns and borders. That means: cross that line and you're dead. Not exactly "free." But freedom is denied to man in its perfect form, so saith these types. The right-libertarians posit that a world without property is less free than a world with it, because property establishes a space in which you may act freely, where propertylessness produces only chaos. A world where every man has his own land is a world that utilizes that land the best, and also where people can freely pursue their own interests, so saith we. But that's a very different statement than "social freedom," or "economic freedom," the latter of which simply means adhering to the exclusive ownership rights of property.

I have been, at one point in my life, drawn away from right-libertarianism for this the property issue. It is hard to support property based largely on its inequitable distribution and exclusive nature. My plea is that libertarians come back to the old ways of natural rights, and forget the argument of establishing property on the basis of consequentialist jabber.

Natural rights are hard things to support. How could it be that what matters more than the outcome is... anything? Don't the ends justify the means? - it is what we're looking at after all, what we're considering. To these I say, yes - I hold no contention. There is no problem with pursuing the best ends, but we must acknowledge that these ends can only be pursued in the first place, insofar as those ends are good, by establishing property rights. Whatever value a man has and wishes to pursue, whatever good value - be it peace, love, friendship - these values are lost automatically in a world ravaged by conflict. Conflict-avoidance is a goal that comes temporally prior to the pursuing of ends, thereby establishing it as an a priori ethic. Property rights are the means by which conflict is avoided. It is initially appropriated by homesteading - the act of utilizing virgin resources - because the goal of land, for man, is to be utilized, and once utilized there is no sense in the removal of that title for the sake of another. Moreover, such 'first come, first served' with regard to the unutilized world is natural - it is what any man would expect, and so establishes itself as a Schelling point - a thing that man will respect on the basis of a mutually-agreeable point in the vast land of unagreeable ones.

To establish libertarianism on this basis is an inherently more powerful argument. It side-steps the values debated by the consequentialists by imposing a natural law that supersedes them. Its support necessitates the libertarian code and its many extensions, where the consequentialist would have to painstakingly enumerate. None of this is to say that a consequentialist argument doesn't serve the libertarian well - indeed, supporting the use of property rights as a means of conflict-avoidance would need to also suggest that values could and would be pursued in a state of peace, and in this avenue such arguments are welcome. But to stand on these alone is to lose a powerful advantage.

Belief in The Arbitrary vs Belief in God

Shadows. Just as the light behind them illuminates their presence, so the light of knowledge behind oneself illuminates one's unknowing. The shadows are because things are - they are the product of the Arbitrary, which All Things made; All Things being All Things, being all of existence - the comprehensible and incomprehensible (to man, for none is incomprehensible to God), the known and the unknown (again, to man) alike; God made - indirectly - all things known and comprehensible to man, and thus, likewise, this ability to reason the unknown and the incomprehensible., for man is in his finite test, but The Arbitrary made God, and All Things with Him - indeed, only in this sense can we, but with respect, establish "Him" as non-capitalized, as non-Supreme, although he is Supreme in All Things Good, which is Superior to All Things; a paradox - the particular as higher than the universal - that allows Him to be forever capitalized, even in this context, which I shall write forever henceforth.

Shadows are of two kinds: those the product of one's insufficiency in knowledge, i.e., the product of his light's angle being too narrow, and those the product of H/himself, because H/he, as All, is a product of The Arbitrary. Of the former, man, but not God, is subject, for God's omniscience is as sure as man's existence, and man's ignorance is as sure as his inability to explain it; of the latter, Both are subject, for Both are products of The Arbitrary, surely as All Things are.

But, and by paradox, the lone shadow is not a shadow for God, but an awaiting opportunity. For the shadows to man's sides are what give his own shadow darkness - like a terrible crowd they rile up its strangeness and make it the most fearsome of all to man. God has only light to His sides, and shadow - the unknown, is known, and merely awaits to be uncovered, to be experienced. As He progresses - as He moves His light toward the darkness, He knows, inexplicably, exactly what the ground will look like; but how much better a picture seen that one imagined! and each spot is more beautiful than the last. This is the heaven in which God dwells - not a place, but a state of mind - forever becoming yet forever glorious, as God is and knows Himself.

Infinity isn't - it is only an idea - surely as Things are. For Things are defined by their presence in the background of non-presence, and if there is non-presence there is no infinity - only The Arbitrary. That there is no infinity, but a (relatively) large sum of Things, allows Their Entirety to be known. But does not one thought give rise to another? After All is known, is there not a new thing made? This is the shadow of the self, dark only to the ignorant. Thus, though there is no infinity, and never can there be, there is an infinity to be had - forever out of reach.

That the ignorant knows anything in the face of ignorance is by the grace of God - the light of truth, known, but inexplicable to its mortal owner in the face of the absurd, is God's gift.

The lower figure, beneath "velum", depicts se - oneself - an notum, his knowledge. The spearheaded shape is Everything. Blocking his knowledge are the dark "umbra ignotum" - the shadows of ignorance, while in the middle, not purely dark, but of grays, is the shadow of the self, defined by his imperfection - the difference between what he desires in proper values and how he acts regardless.

Never mind the picture piece above velum. It was inspired at a different time when I held different views. I do not endorse the existence of damnation, nor Christ's example as the sole means to perfection.

A depiction of God's knowledge is the same figure, with "known" lines across the entirety of The Arbitrary, save a single line - the shadow of the self, which, though forever unexperienced, is known by virtue of the absence of shadows of ignorance, causing His further progression to, paradoxically, transcend The Arbitrary, by virtue of His being able to make what has never before been made.

The shadow of the self is the produce of agency: the unknown "what next will you do?" However, it becomes known as soon as you know all other variables - then you have but to do it.

Is it not action to pursue that thing which you know to choose? Not so - man's will allows the option of other things. That God does not choose them is what makes him God. It is understandable, furthermore, that God's "line" may include a variety of different actions, as one's only necessary property is that producing the greatest benefit in the face of the alternatives. Suppose I choose ice skating over an ice cream cone in the winter time - with a goal of warmth and physical activity, I have succeeded, but it is no less right to have a goal of being cold and satisfied.

To believe in The Arbitrary as a cruel mistress is to live in fear. Not only do they live wrongly in fear of the non-mighty, they most often fear what they cannot explain. The Church of Matter teaches that a giant body of forever imperceivable material dictates everything. Where is this material? What does it do? How could we study it to determine what the material will do next?

As soon as we see things for what they are - perceptions, specifically forms (a brick wall, a house, a book, etc.) - the question remains: what will these forms do next? In large part, we are ignorant of this - it is one of our shadows. But the question remains: why are we not fully ignorant?

Let's assume that the atheist is right - perceptions come from nothing and exist on the will of none. Consider: how would we know what they do? It could be that one tests a physical "law" - say, actions have an equal and opposite reaction - and find that his experiment yields his expected result. But as any Humean knows, that it was done once before, or twice or a hundred, this is no evidence that it will happen again. If, at the core of this belief, we admit that The Arbitrary is Arbitrary, perhaps physical laws change in cycles. No one has more evidence than one who supposes that at precisely midnight, the physical laws will change - planets will go backwards, the Earth will stop spinning, the skies will fall and the floor will lift up, etc. It is not falsifiable, but then, it isn't falsifiable to suggest that at precisely midnight the laws will stay the same! Either way, not one could conclude it.

This brings to mind the most important question of all: how do we know what we know? Let's assume I'm right instead - that all things are thoughts. That forms are produced by the labor of us and God, and that The Arbitrary was only, to begin with, the happenstance of the existence of egos - in this context, a conscious, mindful entity - God and us and whoever else - which occupy no space.

Consider what you feel with a look at the color yellow. Do you "objectively" observe it, with only the conclusion: "this is yellow?" Most do not. Yellow applies itself as symbolic of many traits, including reason, pleasure and optimism, or jealousy, envy and betrayal. Nothing about the color yellow means any of those things, and with other colors there are similar correspondences to virtues and character traits unrelated to the color itself. One could claim that these are the product of a complex interaction with other colored things, to which I ask: why are the animals, too, so affected? Poisonous creatures are well known to color themselves brightly, standing as a ward. And children also - purple stands out as the color of magic, and is the favorite color of 75% of children.

Another example, consider how the look of a person - their facial expression, position and hand movements - allows you to predict what they're thinking to some degree. Certain sorts of smiles mean different things, subtle brow movements indicate others - many have suggested that the bulk of communication is body language. Not only do each of us recognize the meaning of that language, but we each practice ourselves. Certain looks mean things independent of their "objective" description.

Not to be too empirical here, which breaks strongly from the purpose of this blog, these are aspects of what psychologist Carl Jung refers to as a "collective unconscious." As he states:

“My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.”

As a roundabout way to my point, I provide these examples and this idea as a solution to the problem of induction if all things are forms or formers. If yellow means more than yellow, perhaps everything means more than that thing which is objectively presented. Why would this be? If God imposes his thoughts into our minds such that we see them, we're getting a form, but also, perhaps, his meaning behind the form, as the form was thought. We do not understand His thinking process in its entirety - else we could make sure forms ourselves, but perhaps we catch the residue in our unconscious mind. Just as it bears God's signature, such that we know it is that of God, as distinguished from that of others (this being a speculative theory), it also bears His content, and we gain insight therefrom insofar as we can understand it.

Object permanence can be explained this way - our unconscious mind picks up the thought of this object, which includes, aside from its form, that the form is to "last." All things we know regarding the future are unknown at their core at the reasoning level - it stands to reason that other things we know are at a level we cannot yet explain consciously.

One's belief in The Arbitrary, where things elucidate nothing more than their cold, "objective" description, is necessarily a belief in the unknown, at its core. It is a belief in the fear of unknowing. It is the paradox of statement unsupported within oneself.

I've so quoted before, but Kant notes:
"Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but ... let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition."

It seems that as we explain what has befallen humanity in a language more suitable and with concepts more suitable to our intuition, and so our understanding, we indeed get farther assuming that cognition precedes objects, which conform to it. Do not take my word, go about and decide for yourself if everything you see has no attached meaning. Decide if your material explains, could ever explain, that and the problem of induction. Conclude if the explanation that things are forms rightly answers the questions, I invite you.

A Plea to Religious Persons

What I refer to as religious persons in this plea: those who believe in a God, which is or has a mind, who is rational, and who strives for our progression. Buddhists and other non-theistic religious people, and non-religious people, are all welcome to read what's written below, but this is not a plea to you.

Who denies the need for a creation of things? That is, where do things come from? The atheistic response has commonly been that the physical world sprung forth from nothing, and did so arbitrarily. The arbitrary existence is a thing that does not exist with the ability to create existence. Not satisfactory.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, suppose they believe that something has "always" existed - the universe, space, time… whatever it may be, it has existed since the beginning by arbitrary decree. My response: what is space? what is the universe? It is commonly held by many people - religious and irreligious alike - that space constitutes "material" independent of what we see. That is, while we perceive things, they are also things outside our perception. But this is an impossibility - a statement that A is not A, a statement that A - one's perception of a guitar, which is all they can ever know - is also B - a "material" guitar independent of your perception! Indeed, since each of us perceives only perceptions of a guitar, and each perception is different, the "material" guitar being perceivable by no one, the materialist claims that A, your perception of a guitar, is also B, a material guitar, is also C, his perception of a guitar, &c. As soon as one claims they are different things - the perception different from the material guitar - this separate B is entirely superfluous. There is not and could never be evidence of it.

Now suppose the alternative - all things are ideas: forms in your mind. Each of us perceives on his own wavelength, which is bombarded by his own ideas, and other ideas: the guitar not of one's creation, and an imagined guitar that is. This is a plausible explanation because it reduces things to minimal terms. The visualized idea of a guitar is in no way different from the perception of a guitar - each of its properties is no different from those same properties imagined, with the proper strength of mind. It stands to reason that we should accept the guitar for what it is: a compilation of forms.

Of the forms we see, few our own making. Everything we don't make must come from someone else - a being powerful enough to create vivid ideas and impose them in others' minds. He has created a world for us where progress is the name of the game, and our empowerment and growth is the consistent result.

My purpose in this was to suggest that each of us argue for God. The intellectual debate sways everyone's mind, and when the religious cop out, it looks bad. Atheists are ready in a moment to claim God has no evidence, then they turn around and believe in an imperceivable matter than makes up the entire universe, which is inexplicably different from the perceptions of it. It isn't even a coherent position. The simple explanation - the Occam's razor explanation - is that only what is perceived exists. As all we perceive are ideas, and ourselves, these are the only existent things. We know by the nature of an idea - a form - that it must be thought - formed - that there is a creator.

This is not complicated logic. Reduce things to their basic form. The self - the consciousness - does it exist in space? No. It is not an idea. Is time a substance? No. It is not an idea. Time is the vehicle for action making, as space - the realm of ideas - only changes when a new thought is produced. Space and time require the self - not the other way around. The self - the consciousness - is not bound by any confines - it is the a priori, the most prior thing. It exists - and unlike ideas, which can be unthought and so unmade, unlike ideas, which exist in space and are produced by action, the self is confined by nothing. It exists in an atemporal state - an eternal state.

These ideas are not new, and they're not mine. The philosophers of greatest contribution to the intellectual sphere - Kant, Descartes, Plato and Socrates - the logic of these men is not changed by new discoveries in science; science answers to philosophy - It is the historical parent, and always gets the last word. Hume's problem of induction renders an explanation of the universe through the scientific method impossible, for science is no establisher of axioms. If nothing is certain, nothing is probable - as a 99% chance of a 99% chance of a 99% chance… is infinitesimal. No matter how many times you perform a lab experiment, it will never reveal an answer independent of an axiom.

In his paper, The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (to which I do not ascribe), reality theorist (and America's smartest man) Christopher Langan puts it this way:

"The problem of induction is very real; it is manifest in Heisenberg uncertainty and the cosmic horizon problem, finite limitations of scientific tools of microscopic and macroscopic observation, and is why no general theory of reality can ever be reliably constructed by the standard empirical methods of science. Unfortunately, many scientists have either dismissed this problem or quietly given up on the search for a truly general theory, in neither case serving the long-term interests of science. In fact, the problem of induction merely implies that a global theory of reality can only be established by the rational methods of mathematics, specifically including those of logic."

God is not scientific, and never can be - as we discussed, he does not exist in space (and neither do we - our consciousnesses). But it is logical to establish that things are forms and that forms must be formed - a better explanation than, certainly, the imperceivable and superfluous "material." There is no strict deduction in these regards - only that which is simplest and best fits the evidence. As enlightenment philosopher Kant notes:

"Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but ... let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition."

He who contends that God cannot be as he is not perceived by he specifically must then deny the existence of any other mind. By this reasoning, one should believe only in himself - that he is surrounded by mere ideas with, somehow, no origin, or else "matter." Either way, he concludes that the humans he sees are no different from trees with legs, for isn't it simpler to assume that they don't have minds than that they do?

Note the important difference between God and matter - God is not perceived by us, but is perceived by himself - he is perceivable as a self-conscious being, just like each of us. Matter is not, and cannot, be perceived by anyone - it is imperceivable. The Church of Matter is worse than hypocrites, totally oblivious to their own problems, then constantly on the attack that destroys them. Crowd idiocy, the lot of it.

God exists because he is perceived, but we know his existence by his products. Ideas need a thinker, forms need a former - plain and simple. I think other minds are known to us by the signature they bear in mindshare. People often speak of the beauty of God's creation - the beauty that makes them know it's God. Likewise, an idea by another will have a distinctly different flavor - a uniqueness that lets us sense the existence of a mind. As they communicate, they impose their thoughts in our minds in a subtle way.

Accepting that a consciousness produces, each on its own wavelength, God's power is deducing minds from these productions, finding one's wavelength and imposing his thoughts. The thoughts are such on each person that a world is formed. Communication of this world to each solidifies that God's mind is like ours - he tests based on progression and elucidates truths. Other minds do this also, but picking up on the wavelength of those productions reveals - on a level not conceived - the infinite - that these minds are different, as thought they bore a different "signature." One can produce thoughts on to another wavelength, as does God, but each produces from his own wavelength, God included.

I've constructed, and without too many words, an explanation for the universe that stands on simple tenets and is reasoned. Let the Materialists claim there are holes - theirs is the explanation with the greatest hole of all - imperceivable nonsense. That goes for the religious and irreligious materialists, who join together in one church where the audacious are almost always heathens.

These are the sorts of constructions that people need to explain in defense of religion. We need to be on the attack against the vicious doctrine of the Materialists - the doctrine that all must succumb to the imperceivable reality. They give no explanation for their ethics - they are ethical only insofar as their hypocritical stupor remains, and what when it leaves? It is a dangerous philosophy - a dangerous church - that stands on necessarily false tenets. The Aztecs were vicious in their sacrificing to false gods. Atheism demands the sacrifice to a tabula rasa of arbitrarily determined things and events, so they often claim - for if it isn't purposed, surely it's a blank slate! Follow your philosophy to its conclusion, atheist, or quit - your material grants you no oughts, you have no evidence of other minds. You either believe that you're stuck as the only man in a dreamworld - the faithless Occam's razor - or you have serious comprehension problems.

My plea to you, the religious man or woman, is to exploit these obvious contradictions. Make people think about what they say - hold them by a thread over the lone self in his dream world, then ask if they're ready to accept an imperfect explanation of the universe. Ask if they're ready to quit the nonsense of what they deem is "proof" and what isn't. Ask if they're willing to accept logic - the problem of induction, the chooser of philosophy as king and with science as its subject. Ask if they're ready to explain what they believe, rather than what they don't. Ask if they're ready to internalize the complicatedness of the problems surrounding the issue of what all this stuff *is*, if they're willing to accept that perhaps, perhaps, God is not to be isolated in a vacuum, but pondered into the big picture.

Checkmate

The most crucial piece in chess is the one without value. All others ascribe to a points system: queen 9, rook 5, bishop 3, knight 3, pawn 1.. these are useful for determining under what circumstances a trade with the opponent is likely to leave one on top. For the king, however, no such points can be determined. It is the piece that gives the other pieces their value.

The game is lost when the king is both in check, and has nowhere to move.

The concept of checkmate applies nicely to the understanding of when one is utterly wrong on something. If it so be that one's thought is necessarily stopped while he tries to move, each step of the way he is stopped - his argument must be wrong. The same applies to one's understanding of knowledge. If one is to make an argument and then determine that it leads to thoughtlessness, this is the killer of truth.

Suppose, for example, one denies their own existence, as Descartes once attempted to do. He doubts himself, then determines that he had made a doubt in order to do so. His argument is necessarily contradictory. If he wishes to maintain that he does not exist, he must conclude the he cannot think - thoughtlessness. Because he does think, it is wrong that he does not exist. He thinks, therefore he is.

Other arguments include one's desire to digress with regard to the existence of soul. If one concludes that the soul does not exist, he is in contradiction with the idea that his agency could pull through a wonder that caused his existence to have meaning. If the existence has no meaning, there would be no thoughts to select of infinite possibility, and one of those thoughts would not be happiness. Thus, he is concluded to thoughtlessness, insofar as no thought could ever be of value, when his statement assumes that his thought contains it so.

Another regards one's deduction of the soul. Suppose one determines the soul does exist necessarily, by deduction. One could argue that it does not because there is no evidence for it - but as soon as he does so, he concludes that evidence has weight. This is not true unless the soul exists as a means for evaluating that weight. That no soul could exist in a non-evaluative state, this concludes that either the soul or another evaluator exists, and the soul is the only evaluator. Put differently, if the soul does not exist, there is no valuation of what does or could, including thoughts, thus leading to thoughtlessness of a different form.

Forms of thoughtlessness include inability to think, but also, as the above examples demonstrate, concluding no value to thinking: a performative contradiction as one assumes the value of their own statement. No value to thinking is essentially an oxymoron - valueless thought cannot exist because each thought paves the way to some end, which must have value in order to be so. There is no valueless end, and so no valueless thought - it is the nature of thought to have and end, and thus value.

Some can conclude that the soul does not exist because it is infinite, and there is no infinite thing, but in this they are mistaken. An absolute whose artwork is the soul - the self - is not an infinite thing, but an absolute. It is something whose conception is approached as an asymptote, but it in not an infinite thing, nor could it be. This is what differentiates the self from other objective truths: it maintains itself to be never infinite on pain of thoughtlessness. But thoughtlessness is also concluded via these means to any absolute that is stated as infinite; for an absolute infinity is never approachable in the absence of infinity as determined by the finitude of the soul which approaches it.

There are further considerations with regard to what makes the soul valuable. If the soul were not, it would not be - value is ascribed to things according to the soul, the artwork in physical space of the non-physical self, which is the determiner of all value. If none were to conclude that the soul is of equal worth to value itself, in the physical realm, then they would all be wrong by virtue of the soul's infallibility. That is, they could not make up for the fact that their own souls value their statements. And how is it that there can be no other evaluator? I will tell you: because the soul is defined as such.

The soul, though the artwork of the self, is not the self, but defined by its evaluation of physical value in conjunction with existing in the physical world. That is to say, the soul cannot be removed in the presence of necessary value, for such value implies its existence. That the soul maintains itself as artwork simply implies that the non-physical self is the A Priori evaluator, which is true, though it does not maintain itself in physical space, which is the work of the soul. That is, the soul is defined by the self's ability to judge physical value in the physical realm; else the soul could not find the workings of God to be appreciable, and so would damn itself to oblivion or worse in the struggle to find the truth. There is no alternative; it's checkmate.

I cannot stress enough the meaning of the soul's definition. It is an artwork, but must not be labeled as such with regard to its purpose. Its purpose is to serve as the self in a physical sense; and it does this under the ownership - the A Priori possession - of the non-physical self which rules over it.

Consider one who posed that free will was not, because the soul is not. First, how does the soul establish free will? This is simple: it provides unbound ends by virtue of existing under the artwork of the non-physical absolute - the self, which allows it to strive for other absolute ends. Thus the soul need exist for free will, but one whose contention strikes against this freeness is instantly degraded; for how else could one pose a question with regard to an indefinite end? That he seeks to rebuke a concept outside the realm of the physical maintains as necessary his ability to strive for perfect ends, which he could not do without a soul, and which defines his being unbound; being free. There is no alternative-- the refutation is in check and has nowhere else to move.

Other arguments that suffer this fate include the notorious God is dead. How could he be if from one's thought one can deduce his existence? That is, how can it be with the knowledge of absolutes, including God, whose meaning is located in their very existence as such? That is to say, if God exists as an absolute, and he does, then who can deny Him? For do they not deny that thing which they cannot conceive, and as such vow their inability to deny it, and, further, note their own ability to pursue unthinkable ends, perfect ends, in a physical sphere provided to them, by that which we label God? Yes to all questions; their refutation is null - the proof is in the pudding.

Consider further one's denial of the will's freeness. Is it not so that one's actions are defined in value by that which they pursue? If all is determined, what point is there to discussion? Indeed, thoughts would have no value. If all was determined, there should be no questioning, for it all would be for not. Which is not to say it necessarily concludes that one could not think, but that one would not think, and as they do, for the value provided, this determinism, too, leads to the thoughtlessness of the former examples.

The Eyes are the Gateway to the Soul

The soul, being a physical thing, is the mode by which people can differentiate a person from a machine; a body-host from a body. Body-hosts are tools under the use of a soul of a mind - the soul being the self's artwork. Other bodies include machines, tables, chairs, &c. - anything perceivable, not with a host. This is the major distinguishing factor.

The artwork of the self is immediately recognizable - it is the self as it appears. It is not the self itself - this thing is an absolute, never fully attainable or obtainable - a perfect form. It is merely an embodiment of the self as it appears in space. It is unchanging through time, except as the body-host changes in time to meet different countenances. The countenance is the means by which one can most distinctly determine another's character. Other qualities are felt by the soul, but not those which change it, The body may lose skin to a burn, and the soul will feel the burn, but will not lose a part of itself.

Souls and minds correspond in an important way: each is contingent on the existence of the other. Without the mind, the soul would serve no purpose - it could not exist as a thing cogently interpretable, and so would be an artwork of nothing. Without the soul, the mind could not apply itself to an environment: this is the soul's purpose - in conjunction with its body-host - to apply affects to a physical environment under direction of the free will; free will being a function of a minded soul.

Perception of the physical world is made possible by the soul-body conjunction, each of which is necessary to perceive it. This is because while perception is a non-physical quality, the things perceived must resonate at the same frequency as the perceiver in order to make contact. This perception, then, as an adjective - perceiving - is a perfect form; to transform this to something usable, it must be made an artwork under the brush of a physical tool: God's hands. As they mold for him a tabernacle of clay, he is made into a thing that can obtain God's forms.

Mind in the physical is not a thing obtainable or attainable. It is a thing perfect in form. But mind in the non-physical is a more perfect form still - for not only does it depict a non-material form, but a form which cannot be adjective-ized by a lack of the will's being able to choose it. At least for physical minds, the will can choose those actions it makes; even when those actions are contrary to the bulk of what that actor would consider "sensible" under the direction of that non-physical mind that remains in his possession; possessed by the self non-physical, as with all things possessed. For that mind is wiser still than the mind bound by physical temptation - it is where his heart is, and where the forefront of the tempted mind wishes to be, if the character is good.

Possession takes on a new meaning in the face of the non-physical self. It describes the absolute which people choose to own and which accept to the owner that thing needed in order to exist as such. That is, without this self, no thing could be possessed because no thing would have a higher thing to answer to. A priori applies as much to possession as to thought, and in this case as in that, A priori is the self. None can be owned by a thing more prior, else it be non-existent - for self is the most perfect form. None can be owned by a thing less so, because it answers to the owner of the thing prior to it. That non-physical self is the ruler of the kingdom of its inhabitants: soul, body and mind.

Who can say that he wishes to be something other than what he is? He is the perfect thing. What he does with that perfection is his choice entirely, but the hand he is dealt was perfect from the start. Allow me to explain: there are things one can do to better himself. There are things one can do that do not better himself. But man is only damned when he is his own condemner. His hand is perfect - he has merely to realize it as such. Only by deluding himself is he anything less than saved eternally - ready for Judgement day with eyes wide open, soul pouring to the truth.

Why the Will is Free

Suppose one asked you to make a judgment about another's internal language. What do I mean by this? Consider that each of us first translates anything we hear to something we recognize and understand. By this I mean that we're all connected in a familiar way - the mind processes things it reads and decodes them into the sights we see, the things we hear and taste and touch: perceptions.

Decoding is a complicated process that's poorly understood, but the gist is that a message is sent through some means by God to the individual person, who reads out the message and then interprets it to mean something. This is done by all humans - and by God - as they deduce existence they can perceive from the perfect, fully-real imperceivable forms. Forms like "circle" - a perfect circle - forms like "square" - a perfect square - and so on.. things we all know in concept but could never produce ourselves. This is what makes forms so important: they are the things we all strive towards, even as we can never exactly reach them.

Can God make a perfect circle? No. But he can get a lot closer than we do. This is why we ride on his coattails - to get that head start on the highway to forms. The forms highway is rough and rigid and single-directioned, so without another to pave the way it's quite easy to get lost. Get lost, for example, in the depths of a wall which isn't a form and isn't anything - but you think it might be; akin to banging your head on bricks. Getting lost, for example, in trying to *obtain* the form instead of nearing to it as much as possible - the latter of which is productive while the former drives you mad. One who searches for the thing he can never find is mad, but those who approach it are blessed.

There's something peculiar about language in particular that makes it so important to the general scheme of things - it's an absolute, like a form. That is, the language itself, though used, is never entirely itself understood. That is, each of us acknowledges that we use a language, but how it comes about is a permanent mystery. When one attempts to decode the language of another - suppose, say when he writes a contract: an attempt to determine what it is he and another have in common speech such that a mutual agreement might be carried out; the man admits the freeness of his will by interpreting a thing he cannot interpret - more correctly, by attempting to approach a thing - by acting to obtain a thing - that is unattainable. No machine can do this. No person confined to his environment can do this, because it is an end, a goal of action, distinctly outside the environment.

If things outside the environment can be attained - or approached - this makes the way for one to either approach it or obtain it - the former of which is at least possible and the later of which is not. There are crucial factors to consider in this analysis. Consider that when one "obtains" the form: tree, he never sees a tree to obtain it, because multiple things are "trees" though they all look different. The form "tree" is not only unattainable, but it is not conceptualized in a distinct manner. When one thinks of "tree" they mark in their head the sort of things a tree need be - one with branches, leaves, a trunk.. but nothing so specific like a perfect "circle." It isn't hard to determine from this that some forms are not perfect and some forms are. It could be that tree is the making of God, that he has imbued it in its entirety into many different things, and that our understanding of it is fully incorporated by decoding his messages. But trees are not a perfect form - one's depiction of a tree simply characterizes the many traits, at least some of them, that all trees they know of happen to share. The form "tree" is messaged by God such that we may respond in kind with out desired actions and have He make sense of them. In other words, so that we do not babble nonsense in the face of trees.

There is great importance to the matter that trees are not perfect forms. Some forms are determined by creation and some are determined by non-creation-- absolutes. An absolute is a thing in itself, that is never conceptual, never perceivable and fully real - as real to one person as it is to another. Languages are absolutes, as are people (minds), God, and forms (of no creation). Because "circle" is an absolute form, it derives its strength from being fully real. It is useful as a tool in mathematics and provides a basis by which many strive to nearly replicate. The same is true for other geometrical figures. But "tree" refers to many things, any one of which man can obtain fully and duplicate to his satisfaction. Some forms, then, are the relative truths of a language which establishes those forms as being dependent on the speaker and listener. No two people mean the same thing when they speak of "tree" - but each fully understands his own meaning, while both people mean precisely the same thing when they speak of "circle", but neither understands it precisely.

Other forms of no creation include adjectives of some sorts. Many things, like the color "blue" are not perfect forms, because they are each established under a range of many colors, but each of those colors is fully explicable and creditable. The same goes for "slow", "sleepy", "strange"… any form to which many things apply is a form of creation, while any form that many things attempt to apply to is a perfect form-- an absolute of no creation. Perfect form adjectives include rolling, spinning, weaving, ducking… these are human activities, but each can be applied to mechanical devices. How, then, are these perfect forms? I will tell you: they mark in their significance a piece by which non can attain: the drama of the act. When one "spins", he does so with an explicit purpose, and the same for "roll" or "weave" or "duck" -- there is a point at which his activity ends are unattainable, and so likewise with these forms-- the means.

If a machine were to do it, it's kidding itself.

Ends or these means are neither attainable nor deducible - they are dramatized in a play or movie but never exactly displayed in real life. Who "spins" without a purpose? None. So who is spinning except that by which some purpose was already demonstrated? These adjectives denote the existence of something prior to their occurrence, and because that prior thing is never explicable in terms of the adjective itself, the adjective remains perfect. One can elucidate a meaning from this - but it isn't quite up to par. Something along the lines of: none is suited to write the script; but more accurately, since even God isn't watching, "none is most suited to tell the mistakes." People slip up in the theater at a level which none can predict to occur - likewise, in reverse, people make actions in real life to which none can credit a slip-up; and if it were, none would know the difference. The act plays into the language of at least one absolute, and so it is an absolute itself; the adjective makes no statement, despite having one, and so cannot be replicated.

Thus, "spinning" is an different type of perfect form from "circle" or "square." It is one that all people place onto many different scenarios, but on which each scenario attains a perfect form - necessarily each one different from the next and last. But this is because of not the fallibility of the form's perfection, but the inadequacy of language. God does not create the form "spinning" - it is one that we attribute ourselves. It is not an action we can displace to God in and of itself, because we must have a reason - even if this reason is to spin for spinning's sake. That this reason - the act's end - cannot be elucidated by oneself or others is what denotes the perfection. That each is attuned to an absolute is what inspires the absolute in itself. No two "spinning"s are exactly alike.

Allow me to explain in different terms: suppose one were to spin in order to avoid one from capturing a flag around his waist. This spin would be purposed in a certain fashion - but that fashion becomes a part of the act, as it is its end. Thus the adjective "spinning" embodies the action's end. When each becomes attuned to that desire, what they find is an inexplicability, for the action requires a language that is an absolute itself. Thus, the adjective form is an absolute; by embodying something that cannot be described, but is a part of it.

Leaves play a role as a created form - but what of a leafed man? Still a creative form. We see that adjectives are absolutes only insofar as they are connected to a purposed action, which demonstrates the will's freeness in its being an absolute.

What can be deduced from all this? For starters, anything deduced is not itself a form. Forms are things that are, each being a real existence, but the most real being attributed to absolute forms including souls, minds, God, forms of perfection and no creation, &c. There are also created forms, products of an absolute language, which can be fully obtained (though not fully attained) as they must have at once been so. Forms which attribute an end by purposed action into their existence are necessarily absolutes, even as language is insufficient to differentiate them from other absolutes; though they are differentiated, simply not in the language used (but in the language unused.). These remarks qualify one's understanding of a God as he is related to man - the message sender whose needs be decoded by man, such that we ride faster on the highway of forms; to obtain our purpose of drawing near to absolutes. This summarizes life's purpose: to follow God as the means to this end.

Something to do with Liberty

Liberty is that odd combination of desire and strength. It meets halfway between the two. None is free to fly in the sky as a bird, but none are so slaved to work without the chance to quit the job. Each has the strength to serve in his own capacity, each has the desire not to have rules enforced upon him, and each is limited in both regards. What defines this thing that people want? That they'll die for?

One explanation is that true liberty is entirely independent of strength" - bit focused solely on what it is one can do with their strength - but this is a relatively unsound definition. After all, people can do as they please with limitations by way of desire of others - they could rob a bank or run away from jail, that none can do these things without a man's involvement to stop them is no different from their feet and heavy bones that prevent them to lift into their air with flight. Surely one could not contend that one is better or more distinct than the other?

One could claim that people desire *more* liberty such that they fight to be *freer* men, although not totally free in any respect. This may be true - but then, why fight a war? Why the revolutions, the chaos, the constant guerrilla bombardment in ways that entirely restrict their ability to do as they please without another man with a gun getting involved - the most heinous enemy of this defined strength - if they truly want the thing they claim? Surely there is another definition, if a man is will to die for "freedom."

I believe it is found in the word of God. That there is no alternative explanation. Consider that men always follow the dictates of their conscience except when prompted to do otherwise. If one hears a voice and believes it to be God - believes that prompting is of the highest order - then surely they are willing to abide by it at any risk. The thieves and comforters which take their ability to follow that prompting do them the harm of a life in non-continuum with that which they know best. If God wills, it is not that thing from which one can easily stray - not without a fight.

Liberty is being able to do what you want without the severe temptation to do otherwise. If man provides you with the comforts that lean you to the choice of not following the will of God, one is felt to be in a place where he is less free. It is natural that man follow his natural promptings - that he accept his character whom peace directs his being to engage, but it is not natural to find oneself in the care of others, entirely dependent on them and bending to their will. This is where the conflict of liberty arises from, and from this point it can only bring a tearing war.

WIthout the desire to let oneself become the martyr, he is not a follower of God. All of God's followers are in that example of Christ - that man who so perfectly stood for his principles. This is God's teacher, this is who they follow - the Libertarians. That is to say, Libertarian in a classic sense - a not necessarily political sense - the Libertarians who desire to leave their choices in peace and respect others to do likewise. The true libertarian is dirty and rugged, chooses his own course - or else he is wise and benevolent, stays on the mountain and chooses his own course - or perhaps he is mild-mannered, dwells in the crowd, but chooses his own course. Libertarians are those who choose their own course and reject the teachings of others as necessarily inferior to that prompting they know, which is of God.

Who can deny that God is the savior of all men? Who can deny that following his path is the way to true happiness? Who can deny that he is the one to strive for, whose promptings override all else, who suspends the ethics of man in favor of the word of right? These are the unanswerable questions of life, for as soon as one answers "I reject", he has damned himself. None can damn themselves, so non can reject. It is plain as day. Damnation is that tool which reveals to oneself the impossible life. One can only approach it if he desires to find it and becomes madly in search of it, where it is never to be found.

Thing said are not things meant. Nor are things desired to mean the things they are.

What do I mean by this? The things desired to mean are the asymptotes to damnation, to perfection - not perfection in a goodness sense, but in a real sense, where one conceives the perfectly real form - damnation being the conception of a form which does not exist nor could it - These things inspire the meaning to stray from its actuality forever. One can wish to mean one thing, and never actually mean it - a process of self-delusion that envelopes one in unending paradox, and so the madness that he could never reach, by wishing to reach it - Then, even then, his madness is not the result of that thing he desired, nor is it without end should he choose, but it is madness all the same, and a terrifying madness at that.

The Libertarian hero wishes for the escape of any such possibility that his standards be loosed. He holds to the principal of his promptings - the acknowledgment of his "gut feeling" that he acts upon, the statements of this reason according to God's will, even if he does not acknowledge it as such, though he does - and this is what rebels him to the actions of those who wish to change him; him being his desires, and the desires he desires. For one who desires nothing but his own security in the ethics he plays make-believe to deduce is not a hero, but a coward, in his own right, and is a man so limited to the structure of his environment that he is never the hero to change it - by which the Libertarian hero, principled to remain such, cannot survive.

Are all heros Libertarian? No, only the bravest. Many are heroes in the eyes of the crowd, when their actions are understood and their intents fully recognized. The Libertarian hero is not understood, and this is what makes him all the more heroic. He walks a dim path lighted only by the Lord God, the only one to acknowledge his greatness, and he accepts what comes as a scenario which the Lord provides - every minute every moment as part of the lesson he must learn. He is never relaxed unless he is acute, his dreams never tire, nor does his sleep vanquish to black - he is never in darkness despite the darkest room, and he is never controlled as he controls the universe himself.

What a joy it is to be such a hero! What a joy it is merely to watch him. Every story every movie is from the perspective of such a hero - unless it is rubbish - and the readers' looking through the eyes of this man makes them become part of a story they could never desire more for - a story of the hero they never dare become, until once they do, and a hero whose intentions are so good and so misunderstood in one accord. The hero who cannot stand the dictates of his own conscience with regard to the joys of others, but who hates them in comparison to the God he loves, despite loving them as much as even himself. This hero is not the hero of reward on Earth - not the king of earth or the prince of heaven, but the king of heaven and the prince of Earth's goodness, at the temporal price of never holding earthly kingship, for none in the crowd, none of the crowd, can ever acknowledge his goodness even as those close to him do. He becomes the leader of a group so fine-tuned to his purpose that he becomes truly a prince of Earth, ready to inherit heaven's kingdom, but he strives for Earth's kingship not one mite, for he could never bear the comforts, the temptations, to stray on that mortal plane from that which cannot be conceived and bears ever greater weight: that which he progresses to on the faith that God provides. He is the perfect man, the humble man, the weak man that becomes stronger than all the strength of earth even as he acknowledges his weaknesses.

Perceptions in the Face of Non-Perceptions

What is a non-perception? God is not that than which no greater can be conceived. He is greater still.

People talk a lot about absolutes in relation to absolute truth; but what's a lot truer is absolutes in relation to relative truth. Consider an absolute: God. Is he definable? No. Not even yourself is definable, nor myself, nor any self. A self by nature is a being without conception, as it is the conceiver.

Absolutes are truths because they are known absolutely. They must be known to know - that defines them as necessities. One cannot doubt the existence of these things, and because he thinks and cannot doubt them, they are. These include: self, God, other people. (Allow me to explain..)

The self is contorted by most computer scientists as being akin to a machine. There's an important reason why this is necessarily false - the machine has errors in situations outside its parameter control. One who programs a mechanical operative quickly understands its limited application: if the input is not listed in the program, the machine fails to operate. This is not so with man - there is seemingly, indeed not, not any limitation to his coordinative power, to his ability to function.

This is why man is an absolute, and also in conceptual. That is, the self of man. For the self must exist, yet can exist in scenarios it cannot conceive, making it inconceivable on whole.

This is the same with God, who must exist such that there can be unknowns and knowns in the face of one another. More simply stated, that we know there to exist things we have not known is to state that there exists another to perceive them - this is others and God. God, most importantly, as he is the creator of these perceptions which he lends us the gift to interpret, but others also as they are absolutes by our own convictions. If God provides us with truths we do not understand, one includes the empathy one has to other people, and so the relative certainty of their existence.

Now I say "relative certainty" - what do I mean by this? Well, certainty exists in two forms:
1. Certainty by way of undoubtable
2. Certainty by way of God

God's certainty is information to man that he expects us to recognize and which we understand as true. Something like - "I will remain in my chair over the course of the next five seconds" is a doubtable thing. But you know it because God has granted you the form of that chair and the form of yourself.

What is a form?

Forms are the things God creates. Everything one sees and feels and hears and touches - these are the forms of God interpreted into your own internal language. Your language recognizes these things as being of various sorts - but each is the function of something you did not create, for you are not yet a creator of forms, except those as related to God's.

Forms are complicated to explain because they are relative truths. One knows a form and knows its antithesis, but only as they relate to him. One can say: "there is the color red on the wall" - but this means nothing to the man who thinks it blue. Any statement made by another is only true insofar as one has already interpreted it to be so. Take another example: West Point is a college school. Any who disagree do so by way of their own language, or by their different outlook on the world. Perhaps one man sees West Point as a prison, another as a military camp, another as a building with no additional properties. In any case, anything one tells another is transferred from one language into another, by necessity, as our internal languages all differ from one another, and so in an inexplicable way they communicate without absolute truth - but that they do so is true absolutely.

Consider another example: your mother wear's high heels. Let's say I took this example as something you said to me. Well my mother wears many types of shoes. In any case that you saw a shoe she wore and I did not, it is impossible for me to verify that she wears this shoe. So instead I say: "well alright, she wears high heels", and then think of a different sort of shoe - because whenever I think of something it is processed in my language. Perhaps the shoe that comes to my mind is a pink stiletto - but he had referred to a heeled boot. Now we are speaking of different things, despite our having come to an understanding. This is because the form "high heels" transfers over many different types of shoe. It is a form, but a property of many different forms. It is contained within the forms of many other shoes that share particular similarities, but the form itself is of God - interpreted by each man differently, but in a way similar enough to permit communication. The communication finds some common ground from its source, but does not complete this ground as they can only near the perfection of that form - the true existence there - instead, they make partial estimations with their imperfect decoding of God's forms. That communication is possible, even in its fallibleness, is evidence that the forms come from one source, rather than in the minds of each of many sources. They are forms decoded by many sources, but originating from one point, such that communication may be permissible to some limitation.

Never before conceived is the form itself, for even God works from forms. Nothing is ex nihilo, and likewise all must come from absolutes. If it is a form from the mind of God - being from a mind it must be relative. God too works from a decoding of absolute forms. These are manifested imperfectly - a perfect circle, the form, is not anywhere seen in nature nor is it creditable to God or man - but their essence remains despite the imperfections. This is how things come to be - an interpretation of absolutes. When man creates art or buildings or skyscrapers or ceilings - each works from the raw material of forms, though translated first by God, as man is yet too limited to create forms of the nearness of God's. (nearness to the absolute form; vivid, "real") These absolutes can never be attained, but they can be neared like an asymptote, and God's power allows him to better do so than man.

Consider that all men must have derived from the same source. How do we know this? Well, we all share in common the form "man." This form is an absolute. Despite the relative truth of its interoperation, there remains the similarity of the form in the minds of all people, and communicably so. The "self" means different things to different people, but it shares the notable similarities that are defined by the absolute it branches from. Each can never know himself fully - but he can approach thereto as an asymptote.

Consider that man must be derived from the same source by nature of his communication. Any thing that hears or speaks the "same language" means multiple languages but with something in common. This common source is unidentifiable, but there it remains - the form. Man must have the similarity of being able to interpret this form, which highlights his similarity to other men. Further, by being able to deduce this form, he must read it the same as do other men. He comes from the same source in that he perceives the same form - he comes from an absolute universe of absolutes, as there he is able to draw near and study his external natures.

These are the most important elements of non-perceptions in the face of perceptions: their recognition despite their non-perceivability.They are the perceivers, the conceivers - and who can define the act of perception or conception? But there they remain, as evidenced certainly and deductively by their indomitability in the face of conceiving and perceiving.

What holds in store the secret to man's ambitions? Does he not strive to be like God? And what does this mean? It means, simply, that he strives for nearness to the forms - the absolutes - such that his existence and language may become more absolutely real. This is purpose - progression - though the end is undefined as it is defined by redefinition.

Now how does man know which steps to take to draw near to the forms? The answer is simple: he has logically deduced them and so realizes the end point, despite his inability to conceive it. Further, with a being of more power: God, to lead us in the correct manner, it becomes a fully manageable task that we are destined to pursue. This is why man is incapable of choosing a life of stagnation - of enjoying the comforts of the present and nothing more, while still feeling purposed in himself. The Dionysian man, though as saved by God as the Apollonian, is forever less happy, because he focuses on the happiness of a defined end.

Now what does this mean for the rest of us: what is its application? Well the answer is clear-cut: it shows the way in which man can progress despite his inexplicability to do so. It is the deducible proof that despite the thinking man's despair who wishes to know all things - all things which can never be known - there is a happiness, eternal progression, that can always be strived for in the face of unhappiness or toil. It shows the Dionysian man the escape from his constant drowning in sorrows of living in his make-believe existence of supposed comfort. It adds to the light of Christ within us that leads us to the path of God, which he has strengthened our lives for the purpose of accomplishing. It adds the immense opportunism and optimism to any life willing to seek the comforts of God.

There is immense joy to be had in following a progressive pattern - more joy than is conceivable at any point.

Now, is God infinite? An infinite approach to the asymptote, yes, perhaps - but infinite he is not by virtue of the limited forms. Indeed, there is no infinite being nor could there be, but God is great and mighty to save.

Consider that all things work in-tune with this God in a beautiful way. Our whole world existence is defined by a confusing array of truths we cannot understand and barely have recognition of, but which are fascinatingly understood in a way that cannot be denied. God provides a plan too complex to reason, but too obviously correct to ever be strayed from - for the faithful in heart. Only those who desire stagnation deny his benefits. Indeed, every man who wishes something more is found in God, for his heart is already there as a being who from within his bosom acknowledges that his eternal progress means something more to him than the temporal limitations at his heels.

This is the test of time: does man follow God or himself? Each leads to a happy end, provided hisself doesn't lose track of the goodness and stray to the desiring of a course of evil through the justifying of invalid actions, but God is the highway to a faster salvation - which is not to say a salvation in a promise for saving - any man can choose this - but it is the highway in time for man to accomplish his needed deeds and satisfy the temporal cravings to relax in a series of truths nearly approached and in the presence of God. This is more powerful than anything on Earth, and simultaneously it is the least understood - the shadowed door at the end of the hallway whose nature is never defined but that beams with goodness and rightness from underneath its cracks.