The Fool’s Guide To Life And Death

The Fools Guide To Life and Death
By The Fool

Table Of Contents

Chapter 1.
Existential Morality

Chapter 2.
The Means of Production: The Self

Chapter 3.
The Scientific Limit Of Reality

Chapter 4.
Applying Existential Morality To The Scientific Limit

Chapter 5.
The Rhetoric of Honesty, Or The Fall Of Postmodernism

Chapter 6.
On The Nature Of Evil

Chapter 7.
The Fool Unveiled



What you are about to read is a work of obsession, hubris, and supreme foolishness. It is the vain attempt to reconcile the soul with the sheer absurdity of its existence. An attempt that in hindsight has wrought disaster upon my life through what some may classify as Cartesian Anxiety, perhaps among the greatest skeptics, personal insanity. Originally what was considered the end has resulted in the beginning of undeveloped ideals of a scope so vast it has proven to be extraordinarily difficult to organize in a form coherent to most thinkers. To do so would take a lifetime of education, which due to personal and financial constraints seem at this point in my development but a pipe dream, yet placed upon the principles of philosophy must be attempted nonetheless, because I believe the conclusions to be invaluable to the development of any thinker, and so regardless of the validity of the claims made, I must make them because I believe them to be just, and so am forced to attempt their communication.

My obsession began with an experience. When I was seventeen I experienced something that to forced me down of path of reconciliation with its validity. It began with an instinct, such as I imagine salmon experiences when forced to swim upstream. This instinct led me to my room, where I began to meditate. At first I experienced only blackness, then a sensation as if I were floating. As I continued the process, the void turned from black to white and I began to experience the curious sensation likened to a finger applying pressure to my forehead, poking outward. As the pressure increased the white of my mind turned to gold, and I experienced a sound likened to millions of voices crying out in harmony; like how the sound of a river is not one but countless splashes forming the single sound of the rushing waters. The pressure increased, the gold of the void brightened, the sound reached a crescendo, and I felt what could be likened to a membrane break in my forehead. I experienced the sensation of my mind being funneled through my cranium, and beheld what I can only describe as a two dimensional view of the universe. Like a primitive slowly brought up through the atmosphere to behold the sphere of the earth, vaguely knowing the point from which he has ascended, so I was brought to a view of the universe, unified, void of things in the conventional sense of the word, as how the geography of earth becomes unified in context to the planetary scale, and as one brought to space witnesses the earth as a whole, so I witnessed that the universe and self are in-fact one body.

Such a thing if it were possible borders upon credulity, but even greater is the effect upon a mind naturally skeptical. So my obsession began. How could such a thing be possible? The task set before me seemed as monumental as the primitive brought back down and forced to prove amongst his fellow beings that the earth exists as a sphere in space. So began my study of philosophy.

I started with the classics of Socrates and Plato, learning basic causality in the process, and what I found concerning the first cause in it’s relation to the observer seemed to confirm what I experienced, that the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to it’s cause. Traced back to the first cause, what is necessary in relation to itself is its own necessity, therefore the property of the first cause is itself, however as the property of a thing cannot be known without an observer, therefore because the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to it, and I am necessary in relation to the first cause, I am analogous to the first cause. Simply put, I witnessed my self, nothing more.

I then began to research mysticism, and found that the mystic claim of experience with god as the first cause corresponds with what is said of Hindu and Buddhist enlightenment. Notably Thomas Aquinas, among others, postulates that the conception of the first cause is analogous to God, for there is nothing before it, and it contains within it the potential of everything that is considered causal. Consider then what would happen if one were to experience this first cause, the first cause is an absolute unity, therefore one would experience everything, and absolute universe if you will. Because an observer is necessary in relation to the first cause, it is therefore its property. Thus one must conclude that the God of Aquinas is analogous to the self. This corresponds with what is said of Brahma, the foundation of all existence, which is simply consciousness, permeating all things. Simply put, what has been philosophically postulated as God also shares the characteristics of Brahma. This cannot be attributed to mere coincidence, but indicates that there is philosophical validity to the mystics’ claim, for it reveals that the search for God is none other than the search for self.

So we reach the point of the work that follows, the search for the validity of my self. What follows is a collection of essays that attempt to show how the self functions. Each essay taken alone seems disjointed, a fraction of an idea undeveloped. I cannot say I am proud of them, for they lack the fluidity and grace of such thinkers like Camus. They lack the insane genius of Nietzsche. They lack the precision of Kant and Schopenhauer. However taken as a whole they represent the best that one self-taught as I am can hope to accomplish at this point in time. Unlike the greats, they are written with little references, so that an amateur may gain as much as he or she is able without an education in philosophy. It is a fools guide written by a fool for other fools. I hope that the reader may gain the bigger picture that is hinted at yet poorly explained.



1.	Existential Morality

All living things along any scale of self-awareness or lack thereof, are ultimately driven by the pursuit of pleasure and the fleeing of displeasure.

From a purely animistic-evolutionary perspective this would make complete sense, for if all life naturally follows what is pleasurable, than evolution would instill pleasurable feed-back in response to factors which contributed to the survival of a given species.

The most obvious examples for the majority of life forms would be the basic necessitates of food and sex. Every life-form must eat to survive, and reproduce to continue the species, so it makes utter sense that if life naturally pursues what it finds pleasurable, that evolutionary forces would instill the pursuit of such pleasure in the necessities of living.

However, with creatures of increasing self-awareness this dynamic of pleasure-seeking becomes more complex do to the nature of a beings' choice interacting with its environment.

Tomas Hobbes was correct when he postulated that what we find pleasurable we find moral, and what we find displeasurable we find immoral. However his explanation is not explained aside from the statement itself, and leads one to assume a dichotomy of morals and motives, between a complete lack of free-will, or absolute freewill.

The extremes of the age old debate goes like this; if what we find pleasurable we naturally pursue, and what we find pleasurable is what is moral, then morality is a universal objective thing, and free-will does not exist, for all choices and morals are ultimately dictated by environment. The chemistry of the brain would be considered part of this environment, and as environment dictates what is pleasurable or displeasurable; that which we pursue or flee, free-will is therefore a delusion.

The other end of the argument is the opposite, that an individual can choose what is pleasurable and therefore choose what is moral, thus free-will is real, and morality is ultimately a universal subjective of self. There is no objective universal morality because we can choose to alter our environment, and therefore our own brain, necessitating a change in morality.

Modern psychoanalysis has finally gotten to the point where we are willing to admit that we can choose to change our own environment and thus change our brain-chemistry, changing ourselves.

However by this logic, choice is indistinguishable from being driven by a perceived displeasure of circumstance, thus the argument of choice choosing to act on itself appears moot, for there is no explanation as to how free-will could act upon itself if everything appears to be dictated by environment.

The self is environment, but to be self-aware is to have the capacity to generate subsets of an environment, generating new evolutionary circumstances, and thus perpetuating new environments.

Imagine a herd of Gazelle whose food source is destroyed by a brush fire. At the end of the resulting starvation period, the Gazelle left would be those who had the slower metabolism needed to survive the famine, and thus the perpetuation of the trait: slower metabolism is established amongst the population.

In the same way that the environment acting upon itself generates subsets of an environment, so do our choices act upon reality, creating subsets of the environment from the whole, necessitating the creation of "new" or separate evolutionary paths.

If this is true, and there are indeed subsets of the environment generated from the choices we make, then there should be an observable disconnect between the natural environment and the subsets produced from our choice acting upon this environment. Look at our cities, look at our systems of agriculture; all force host beings to adapt the necessary traits for their continued perpetuation.

Choice necessitating the generation of secondary environments explains the problem we have had in understanding our own morality. For if what we find good we find pleasurable, yet pleasure is dictated by environment, but choice generates subsets of that environment, necessitating a divergent evolutionary course, than it must be that morality, though universal as a function of environment, is comprised of a trinity of moral environments; the environment of nature; the environment of culture; and the personal environment.

But what's more is that because the self cannot be distinguished as separate from environment, yet choice is real as it produces observable subsets of said environments, this being necessitated by self-awareness, it must be that the "self" is literally the environment acting upon itself through awareness of its own being.

Thus the self as separate from the whole is an illusion, for the self is the environment acting upon itself, yet the self is necessary for the generation of its own subsets, therefore though the self is environment, it occupies a multitude of existence through the generation of its subsets; the natural, the cultural, and the personal.

As the self-aware-environment must use a body, or active agent, in order to necessitate choices which generate subsets from the whole, it is logical to assume that the function of self, necessitating choice, necessitating the generation of subsets, must be driven by self and not by the dynamics of pleasure, for if choice driven by pleasure is driven completely by an environment, how could such obvious disassociation form between the human-made, natural, and societal environments?

The answer comes from the function of self, manifesting through reason, which is analogous to nothing aside from its actualization in logical explanation.

All cognition is logical, all choices are logical, however most cognition is based not from true reason, but from a delusional state of logic that is not of the environment acting upon itself through itself, but the personal environment acting upon others.

Imagine a businessman who in taking the same route to work each day, habitually passes a homeless person that begs for change, of which the businessman obliges.

The delusional state of logic is such that the businessman gives the homeless person change not because he believes what he is doing is morally good, but because he has become addicted to the pleasure he gets from the perception that it is good.

When choice is driven by pleasure it is driven by environment, not the self-awareness that generates sub-sets of itself; creating new choices, new explanations, new understandings, but by the self-perpetuation of its current environment that it identifies itself as.

This is what Buddhists call "The Ego", a state of delusion from which the self-aware environment identifies itself as a mere subset of its being, and not the one that is three.

The self in this state of delusion is driven by the pleasure of a thing, not the thing itself, and in being driven by the pleasure of a thing; it is driven by the perception of the good over the bad.

The disharmony, the degradation, the cruelty of the human condition is a state caused by those who identify their personal environment as the self, and in doing so buy into the personal environments' agents of perpetuating "good" and "evil"; a universal objective morality that is singular and not multiples of itself.

By biting into the idea of "Good" and "Evil", the mind becomes driven by the pleasure it receives from the concepts, and no longer sees them as a function of displeasure or pleasure driven by nature in context to the whole, but as the "Good" justified over the "Evil".

““The good must overcome the evil because it is good, and you know it is good because it feels that way”” Does this not sound like a justification for any sort of madness imaginable? For if there are actually multiple moral environments which are the self, and not one, than to identify the personal environmental concepts of good and evil when all concepts in their entirety fall under the personal environment of mind, is to justify nothing more than the personal perception of pleasure under the guise of a delusional morality.

Evil can feel good, good can feel bad, to think it otherwise is to deny that each good and each evil can only ever fall into the context which defines it in the picture of reality, and the multiple environments which can, and do, produce opposing sensations of pleasure.

The question is then asked how one can harmonize the three environments of self? How one can actually unify the opposing dynamics of pleasure?

The answer is in over-coming the self, of eternal self-surpassing. For once an idea has been understood through the personal environment that identifies itself as the self, the idea takes part in the delusional self-perpetuation of the idea and not the thing that is being communicated. The explanation of truth immediately becomes a justification of the self-disconnected from the whole.

The answer in overcoming the personal environment, of overcoming the ego, is love. In the words of Hillel "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow".

To care for others, to love life for the sake of it, to show compassion for humanity is the key for dissolving the illusion that the self of the personal environment is not the self of humanity, or the self of nature, and is the first step in experiencing a reality void of such dissociative states.

Love is not good or evil, it is Love.

To believe that Love is good is to believe that Hate is evil. If Hate is the absence of love, how could you truly love?

To believe that Love is good is to believe in your personal environment of Love, the personal environment being dissociated from the whole, how could you Love anything but yourself?

To love is to love, and just that.

We are approaching the great delusion of mankind, the time before the eternal self-surpassing in which we transcend the personal environment of individual humanity.

The great delusion being the complete self-satisfaction of those who perpetuate a given system, of those who are not satisfied with Love, but by a critical mass of people; an entire society having all their pleasures met to the extent that the original values of freedom become justifications of the good over bad; the pursuit of pleasure driving the self-perpetuation of a given environment. When this happens the systems of freedom cease to self-perpetuate from Love and true self; from the creative force of environment which drives evolution through infinite subsets of itself, and begins to perpetuate an almost unchanging environment, an environment of stagnancy, of death, of the denial of any other environment but its perceived whole, an environment that is justified by laws not given by nature, but by the delusion of separateness from it.

To overcome this danger we as human beings must create new subsets of ourselves by choosing to love, not because it is good, not because you get pleasure from it, but because it is love.

This is not because of any magical force, but because when we make the choice to care for all things we choose to include them in all the choices we make, and thus perpetuate environmental subsets that cannot be completely disassociated from the whole.

The problem we face is the natural human condition; the dynamics of cognition; of self awareness; for the mind, the self, are actualized over time, forming from the natural pursuit of pleasure and fleeing of displeasure.

Thus all we know from birth is a state of delusion, for the mind, the self being driven by pleasure, is driven by environment, and in being driven by environment the environment is perpetuated.

The environment that is perpetuated is that of the personal environment of self, the vehicle from which self-awareness is born, yet is not the true self in that it does not associate its being as the totality of environment, but as a thing separate from other things.

Despite this delusion, freewill exists, for if our actions, our choices to commit to actions were completely determined by the pursuit of pleasure, than there would be no observable disassociation of environmental subsets generated through choice.
All therapeutic and psychiatric practices would be impossible without the ability of the environment to act upon itself generating new subsets, which can again act upon themselves in accordance with a directing will or intent.

From the dynamics of reality experienced by our-self, it may be said that we exist in life as a continuum of choice interacting with reality through self-awareness.

Of the forces that act upon the self, it may be said that the greatest of these are Love, Belief, and Awareness.

Love, for by caring for all things, having compassion for life beyond that which is beyond the personal self, one includes all things in the choices he/she makes, and thus limits the state of delusion brought upon the personal self from the perception that things beyond it are not part of it.

Belief, for by choosing to believe in ones self, one may increase the effect produced by choice upon reality. Ask anyone who deals with the healing of mind; it is the patient choosing to act upon him/her self which produces the greatest effect, not drugs, or strategies for development, but the patient choosing to participate, choosing to acknowledge and work on problems that actualizes healing. Which entrepreneur has never taken a risk not possessing the resolve of belief necessary to follow through on the choice to act? Which person thrown into the abominable circumstances of war and genocide has not had the belief in self-necessary to survive?

Awareness, for one cannot explain a thing if one does not know it, and one cannot know a thing if one is not aware of it. I am awareness in the form of a thought, which sees its identity as the thing it is not; thought from awareness, but awareness in thought. I am awareness in thought, thus am I able to be aware of myself, to think and predict, and theorize all potentials that exist within me.

To maximize the actualization of self, to achieve the potential of the self identifying itself as not just the personal, but cultural and natural environments, one must actualize Love, Belief, and Awareness in ones life, a thing which is easier said than done.

A person may believe in love yet not be aware of what love is; may be aware of love yet not believe in it; may love yet not be aware of it.

A person may be aware yet not believe it, just as a person may believe in awareness yet not be aware of it.

The ignorant being believes that those who live a true life do not suffer, for suffering is the cost of self-actualization. If what is morally good is what we find pleasurable, and choice driven by pleasure is driven by environment, yet the self is comprised of multiple environments; the natural, and the subsets of the personal and cultural, it is then possible for those moral environments to be in conflict, possessing opposing pleasure/displeasure responses, thus pain is produced, anger, remorse, guilt…etc.

It is easier for one to survive in pleasure than in pain, thus we choose to perpetuate our personal environment over all others, for if one moral environment is dominant over others, than there is a dominant pleasure/pain feedback loop, reducing moral tension. The total environment is the self, shaping our personal environment through the settings of nature, culture, and the feedback of the personal environment in context of our choices through time, generating a continuum of environmental subsets. Therefore the self is always changing, but the nature of self as a continuum of change is completely counter to the potential dynamics necessitated by the factors of choice and the natural pursuit of pleasure. For if choice driven by environment produces pleasure, yet there are multiple moral environments in constant change and contention, than to produce maximum pleasure from life would be to choose to perpetuate an unchanging single environment.

We have seen this choice throughout history, in political systems like fascism and communism, which attempt to perpetuate an ideological society with unchanging rules and values.

Thus one of the mysteries of evil is revealed: as environment defines ones morality, the cultural environment may become dominant through the absolute values one is born into, an individual’s personal environment becoming analogues to the societal environment, thus perpetuating an absolute rule through ones choice to pursue the pleasure he/she gets from perpetuating one absolute environment.

An individual can choose to accept a set of values for the sake of this pleasure to such an extent, that they will do anything to continue their mental high produced from the delusion that there is one single environment, and that this environment is morally right in context to all others.

There is no difference between the dynamics of religious fundamentalists and Nazis, or of individuals who are deluded to the extent that they believe their personal environment is absolute over others.

The latter is one of the dangers of a free society, for because democracy allows for the freedom of an individual to choose his/her identity as being the dominant environment, an individual may become thoroughly deluded as to what is truly moral or immoral, believing that all the choices he/she makes which fall within the laws of culture are permissible, but even more dangerous is that because a democracy accommodates the change of itself, an individual may become deluded to the point that they feel completely justified and satisfied in forcing a change upon others, for they honestly feel they “know” the right of everything, for everything they “know” comes from their personal environment dictated by a system which supports change in values.

In the ways an environment differs, is what is seen as immoral between them.

Native Americans believed the Europeans to be immoral because the Native cultural environment was dominated by nature to the point their personal environment was also. Europeans viewed Native Americans as immoral because the European mind was dominated by a societal environment that had formed ways of living which were not dominated by nature.

In today’s age most citizens of western democracies do not feel that their society is moral, (for how could that which allows change in moral environment provide the pleasure necessary for the absolute morality demonstrated in the past?) but that they themselves are, for they have been given the privilege to choose their own personal environments. Most “social justice warriors”, are those who are completely and utterly dominated by their personal morality in context of a changing democracy, so much so that they feel it is their right to force their own version of morality down others throats. This is the true “privilege” which they ironically misuse.

We as human beings do not have the right to judge a thing based on its perception of morality or immorality, but by how those moral judgments are formed in context of the environments of nature, culture, and individual, which are as a whole, our self.

There are terrible aspects of the personal environment that can dominate an individual by being born into them.

What of sociopaths? The ones who are born from a body that cannot empathize with others, that cannot feel love? Those who are deemed by history in making the greatest contribution to the progression of a cultural environment would most likely be such. Alexander the great; Agamemnon; Genghis khan; William the Conqueror; Charlemagne; Napoleon, most likely possessed such lack of empathy as to be classified as the greatest criminals, but were not so dominated by their natures as to live for the sake of domination or killing, but had visions of creating new cultures, and understood the necessities of governing a people which they knew saw their culture as being themselves, most likely by virtue of their own dissociation from cultural and personal norms. If culture naturally forms by virtue of our self-awareness and social nature, would it not makes sense for biological evolution to impose traits that cause such disassociating effects, forcing one to view himself/herself apart from the personal environment imposed by culture, being freed from human tyranny by virtue of his/her own nature?

What of those attracted to the young? One of the greatest philosopher kings, Marcus Aurelius, a pinnacle of moral thought, openly admitted to fucking young boys, and to being convinced by his friends to stopping such acts later in life. Van Gogh had a relationship with a ten-year old girl. Do you really think these individuals went around organizing secret kiddie rape gangs or prostitution rings? Does it not make sense from a purely animistic biological perspective that such attraction should be perpetuated by nature? For if one is attracted to those at the very beginning of their development, would that not mean a greater probability that his/her genes would be perpetuated, thus constituting an evolutionary advantage?

A sociopath feels pleasure not remorse in the act of domination and killing, for it is in his/her nature to do so, just as one attracted to the young naturally feels pleasure in his/her own nature.

Those who are not aware, who cannot comprehend the dynamics of pleasure and morality, do not see their acts as immoral, and cannot understand why others see them as such. A phenomena observed by criminologists against the convicted.

There are countless people who exist and have existed, those who have contributed the most to humanity, which possessed these biological traits, yet do/did not spend their lives raping and murdering others, because besides their nature they chose to love things which were not of their nature, and in choosing to love something other than themselves, became aware of the complexity and truth of the trinity of existence, becoming aware, they chose to believe in values which were beyond the personal environment dominated by their nature or host culture, actualizing self beyond the personal environment, generating new and novel subsets which continue to influence, perpetuate, and guide humanity to this day.

To overcome yourself you must love things other than yourself, if you are “evil” you must love the “good”, and if you are “good” you must love the “evil”, for good and evil are only real in context to another environment. Through love you shall become aware of reality, for by choosing to love everything, you include all environments in the choices you make, in the environmental subsets you generate. But this cannot be truly done unless you believe yourself to be able to make the choice in the first place, to choose to believe that your self is not merely the personal environment dictated by culture or nature, but that you are literally the total environment acting upon itself through self-awareness. Belief is nothing but faith in the self; it is invisible like the function of choice acting upon reality, but the effect it produces upon choice, like that of the effects of choice itself, are undeniable.

The reality that people flee from, the curse of nature that causes the truth to be turned into absolute environments perpetuated by those of absolute mind, is that to choose to love the total environment, to love others than yourself, is to bring necessary suffering into your life, for as morality is driven by environment, there will always be opposing moral drives of pleasure and pain generated from the contention of the moral environments of nature, culture, and personality.

This is the terrible truth of the human condition, the price of love, which the masses unable to bare the pain flee from, into the pursuit of absolute pleasure, and absolute morality, a condition that is removed from the reality of the trinity of our existence.

Despite the pain, despite the suffering, we must choose to love the totality of our existence, and to believe in ourselves, so that through awareness we may someday overcome ourselves.

But is this about fleeing the human condition, or embracing it?

The answer initially appears paradoxical, for by embracing our nature we overcome it, ceasing to be the nature we were embracing in the first place. But then the question becomes was that our original nature? So what were we embracing to begin with? The simplified claim of the monotheistic religions is that this state of natural acceptance was corrupted by the knowledge of good and evil, but that this knowledge makes us like god.

As has been explained, what is morally good and evil is nothing more but pleasure/displeasure feedback loops. Given the natural tendency of life to pursue pleasure, this drive being used by evolutionary forces to dictate a "positive" or "negative" choice in context of survival; a life-form possessed of self-awareness, identifying these feed back loops as the concepts of "good" and "evil" creates a dynamic where one can use our self-awareness to choose what is good and what is evil, meaning one may perpetuate an alternate moral environment. Literally creating subsets of the original dynamic which drives life in the natural environment, hence we become like god in that we may generate our own environments through will or choice.

However, being that we naturally pursue what is pleasurable, the dynamics of morality create a sort of neurosis, were the self-aware animal is literally given a psychological pleasure button, and being dictated by it's own nature, constantly seeks to maximize its pleasure by striving to perpetuate an unchanging environment of self-perception, or absolute freewill of the personal environment.

I don't think this is some curse from deity, or ourselves, but part of the natural process of becoming a truly self-aware lifeform, of becoming life. For if life naturally pursues what is pleasurable, and naturally becomes self-aware, than it is natural that the aware-animal would seek maximum pleasure necessitated by its choices.

The irony is that the true definition of the self is not the personal environment from which self-awareness arose, but the entirety of environment encompassing all subsets of self. So even though freewill and the personal self are real things observable by their effect on reality; thus explainable through logic and natural laws; the state of self-perception as being separate from the entirety of reality is ultimately a form of delusion, from the perspective of one outside itself. The ego fears this, because it cannot rationalize how it may exist as multiple environments, and instead imagines itself as the absolute singular environment of nature when told it is something beyond itself. But this perceived non-existence is not the case, for the personal environment has an actualized existence along side its multiples. What is more ironic is that the fear is produced by imagining the personal self as truly absolute, truly indivisible, which is the logical byproduct of a singular personal environment completely disassociated from the whole, existing only in and of itself.

Ultimately the fear of this is nothing but the same pleasure/displeasure response trying to perpetuate its absolute existence, yet ironically this is done so by it perceiving the logical path of its current mindset.

By embracing our natural drives through true love of not only our own but other natures, we are less motivated by the personal pursuit of a good over an evil, the concepts taking on more complexity by virtue of our choosing to include subsets other than our own in their making, thus increasing the awareness of self in context to all, not just the personal environment.

The horrible irony of the situation is that the conception of the self existing as multiple environments is utterly alien, seen as nothing to the personal self, thus it could never be shown aside from it taking part in the personal environments perception I.E logical objective explanation, and in so doing becomes part of the personal environments delusional justifications. Yet given the nature of reality I have described, there is no choice but to use the reasoning function of the personal environment to overcome the personal environment in the first-place.

It is by the foolish nature of man that I even attempt to explain these things....




At this point the reader may be ready to dismiss the previous claims as mere conjecture, that it is one thing to claim that morality is a product of pleasure/displeasure feedback-loops, which are dictated by our function of choice generating multiple environments of morality, but quite another to prove it in context to our modern understanding. The answer to this lies within materialist and determinist logic, as shall be shown.





2.	The Means of Production: The Self

The concept of morality, of an ethos that can be called “right” or “wrong” is something which is unique to, and a product of Self-Awareness. This concept is the force behind any ideology, and ideology is responsible for the perpetuation of any human system, be it of the individual, the culture, or any subset in-between. As morality is the driving force behind all social and personal systems, if one understands how morality functions, one understands how human existence perpetuates itself. However in order to understand how morality functions, one must define what morality is, yet because morality is a product of Self-Awareness, in order to define morality one must have knowledge of the self.

The self defined as analogues to self-awareness; being generated from the body, relegates the creation of The-Self to the body, and as the body exists after a preexisting environment that is its cause, it is held that the environment, not the self, determines morality. Yet this cannot be, for if morality is what determines the perpetuation of ideology, of culture, of the individual, and the preexisting environment determines morality, then there should be little observable disassociation between the morality which determines a culture, and that which determines the individual.

Individual behavior determined completely by a preexisting moral environment, should not show large variation between them, yet what one observes of the individual, is great variation of personal morals in context to the ideological values that determines a given culture. There are some who are completely aligned with the values of his/her host culture, while there are those who are forced to participate in their perpetuation by virtue of survival within the given system, not believing in the values by which the host perpetuates. There is such a diversity of values within individuals of a given culture; it is most improbable that the environment completely determines the individual, but that the individual can to some degree choose his/her own values.

The belief that the individual is the self, has determined that the self, and therefore any product of it; variation of individual values, novelty of ideas, changes to the means of production, are caused by the preexisting environment; consequently any change in culture necessitated by a change in the individual, is caused by a change in environment. Under this logic, the individual does not determine the means of production, but is determined by the environment; morals cannot be chosen, but are determined by environment; individual choice and behavior cannot act upon themselves, but are determined solely by the environment.

This deterministic belief in reality has resulted in a complete negation of the truth; that we are already the means of production, that we have free-will to act upon our own reality and ourselves. This ideology of logic results in the conclusion that we are in essence slaves to the environment we are born into, and that we have no choice but to be governed by our reality, that our lives are nihilistic in the truest sense of the word. Though this deterministic logic is sound, the conclusion it reaches; that The Self being the individual is not founded in its own logic.

Our current psychological understanding in context of determinism holds that we are our behavior, and our behavior is controlled by brain-chemistry. When our environment changes, our brain-chemistry changes thus our behavior does also. Despite this seemingly ironclad logic, modern Psychoanalysis holds that the individual can choose to change his/her environment; therefore behavior is altered by the change in the brain necessitated by the change in environment. However the Determinist rebuttal states, because we cannot determine if the choice to change an individual's environment has been caused by the individual, or the perception of the preexisting environment, we cannot assert that the change as been Self-willed... But here is where such determinism falls apart.

Determinism holds that the individual self is the environment, and because the scientific method deals in observable, material results, it is logically assumed that the individual self resides in the material environment of the brain, the brain existing within a pre-exsiting environment; our choices being necessitated by the behavior produced from brain-chemistry; brain-chemistry being altered by a change in environment, all choices are driven by the environment and free-will does not exist.

Hypothesis: If free-will exists, then there should be obvious disassociation produced between the subsets of environment necessitated by choice, in contrast to those driven by the preexisting environment.

Evidence: Technology, for our tools are not found in nature, yet are used to perpetuate our environment. Agriculture, for it strips the nutrients of the soil faster than anything found in nature aside from cataclysms like a volcanic eruptions. Civilization, for our societal environments perpetuate themselves with obvious disassociation from all other natural environments. Climate change, for as our civilization has become global, and perpetuates itself dissociated from nature, our environment has begun to radically alter the natural environment, by virtue of competing means of evolution.

A strict determinist would argue that even if choice necessitates dissociative subsets of the natural environment, this does not prove that the individual has driven the choice, for as the environment exists before the individual, and our behavior which controls our choices is changed when the environment does… though choice may generate environmental subsets, they are still determined by the environment.

The logic of determinism is correct, but incomplete, for if the self is our behavior, and behavior is determined by environment, then the self is our environment, and therefore the self viewed as individual relative to the environment is an illusion created by our self-awareness, whose function is to disassociate the self from environment, in order for choice to exist. If we are our behavior, and our behavior is determined by environment, then logically we are our environment, and if this is the case then there is no bases to assume that the definition of self is relative to the individual, but logical to conclude that the self is in-fact our environment.

Because there is observable disassociation in the environmental subsets produced by our choices, relative to all other life on earth, and the thing which makes us truly different, truly disassociated between ourselves and other life-forms is our consciousness, our ego, our self-awareness… It must logically follow that to be self-aware is to be aware of our self, and as the self is the environment, to be self-aware is to be aware of the environment. As subsets necessitated by self-aware choices produce such obvious disassociation in context to pre-existing environmental subsets, it must be that the effects of choice are determined by self-awareness, and as the self is the environment, choice is literally the environment acting upon itself through self-awareness, or an awareness of itself.

The self is environment, but to be self-aware is to have the capacity to generate subsets of an environment, generating new evolutionary circumstances, and thus perpetuating new environments. Let us say that there is a population of gazelle of which their food source is diminished by a brush fire. After the ensuing starvation period created by the fire, the remaining gazelle would be those who possessed the slower metabolism needed to survive the starvation period, thus the gene for slower metabolism is perpetuated among the population, and evolution is driven forward by what constitutes the survival of the species. Just as the environment generates new circumstances that determine the course of evolution for a species, so do our choices generate circumstances that alter the environment we live in.

Ideology as the driving force behind the perpetuation of culture acts as a consistent agent of environmental circumstance through time, determining the means by which people must perpetuate themselves. However as the values of an ideology arise from the collective understanding of a people, and as this understanding arises from self-awareness, which is necessitated by the choices one makes relative to a pre-existing environment, it must follow that our social environment, our culture, is determined by the collective choices of the individual in perpetuating the ideology of said culture.

Morality is the driving force that determines the perpetuation of ideology, for what is determined by a person to be “right” “good” “correct”, that person will choose over what is considered to be “wrong” “bad” “incorrect”, and in choosing one thing over another, said individual generates personal subsets of the pre-existing environment, perpetuating the choice within themselves and among the populace. The values of any cultural ideology are considered to be morally right in context to opposing values, and it is this concept of morality assigned to ideals, which act as unchanging environmental circumstances, determining the choices an individual can or cannot make in context to the preexisting environment.

Thus it may be said that morality is analogous to the perpetuation of an environment. However as self-awareness necessitates the generation of subsets from a pre-existing environment, constituting the perpetuation of personal as well of social values, and these values arise from the natural biological environment of the body determined by nature, it may be said that there is no single moral environment, but a multitude of competing/contrasting morals determined by nature, culture, and the individual. Because the perpetuation of a single moral environment is analogues to what is morally right, yet a change of circumstance constitutes a change in the individual subsets necessitated by self-awareness, and therefore a change in the collective social values, there will always be contention between moral values.

Ideology is a set of values, of ideas that are traditionally unchanging, for they are perceived to be morally “right” in context to what is morally “wrong”, which act as a limiting factor upon the subsets that can be produced from the individual. Because values are ideas, which are unchanging, any ideological system seeks an absolute perpetuation of itself. If the values of a system do not accommodate for the inevitable change of personal subsets generated from a change in environment, and instead continue an absolute perpetuation, conflict is produced between the change in values arising from the Individual and the system of ideas that determine the current environment. Because ideological values are unchanging and seek an absolute perpetuation of themselves, revolution is inevitable given that reality is change, and thus there will always be contrasting individual subsets of environment produced, generating ideological systems which seek an absolute perpetuation of themselves. Revolution is avoidable, if current environmental values are themselves the value to change according with the change of the individual subsets produced from choice.

Though a change in choice may be determined by a change in environment, choices themselves are necessitated by individual Self-Awareness, which generate subsets of a preexisting environment, and thus constitute a change in environment. Because the individual constitutes a change in environment, individuals are the means by which society perpetuates itself, by changing itself, however because ideology naturally occurs by virtue of collective values which seek an absolute perpetuation of themselves, and this is counter to the nature of living change which we are, a cycle of revolution of values naturally occurs, through the human-made social environment seeking to determine the means of which it perpetuates itself, instead of allowing the people, who are already the means by which society perpetuates, to change their own environment. This cycle of revolution will continue until that which determines the social environment; the people, are recognized by the social environment that seeks to determine them by an unchanging set of ideological values, and recognizes the people as that which is responsible for its creation.




3.	The Scientific Limit Of Reality

When one observes the properties of reality, the observer is forced to concede that all things are necessary in relation to other things, that these things can be considered properties, and that these properties can be considered causes. When one traces the chain of causality to its logical beginning, the observer is faced with a first cause that is unified in a singular property, thus changeless, void of things and time. As all things are necessary in relation to other things, a singular property void of multiple things, would be void of change and time. As such a state is nonsensical to us, our reality is necessitated by a divider, which through division of the singular property, generates multiple things, which are in turn properties.

A property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause.
All things being causal, in that each thing which changes must interact with other things, and so be considered a cause in relation to things changed; all properties can therefore be considered causes.[1] As all properties are causes, it may be said that a property of a thing, is that which is necessary in relation to it.

As the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, and the first cause is seen as necessary in relation to the impossibility of non-existence, it logically follows that because the property of a thing is necessary in observing and acknowledging a set of causes and effects, that the property of the first cause is non-existence. However due to the impossible and nonsensical nature of non-existence, it must logically follow that the first-cause is its’ own cause, by necessity of the impossibility before it in the line of causal reasoning.[2]

Because it may be said that the first cause is its own cause by necessity in relation to non-existence, it may also be said that because a property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, that the property of the first cause is necessity, and as all properties can be considered causes, the first cause is therefore necessity. As the necessity of the first cause can be seen as the cause of the first cause, according to casual logic, the necessity of the first cause can be considered the first cause in that it precedes its own actualization.

Because a property is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, and the first cause is necessary in relation to non-existence, non-existence being impossible, it must therefore be that the property of the first cause is necessity, and as properties are also causes, it may be said that the first cause is necessity.

What is necessity?
Necessity has no cause; it is necessary, so it exists.
Necessity has no property; as a property is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, there being nothing in relation to necessity, necessity has no cause and therefore no property other than itself.

One may criticize that if a thing is its own property, then it is impossible for that thing to be propertyless, as it consists of itself as its own property, and that to be propertyless would mean a thing is non-existent, therefore impossible. But this is making the assumption that what is being spoken of is indeed a thing, in the causal sense of the word.

At the beginning of my reasoning’s I stated; “a property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause. All things being causal, in that each thing which changes must interact with other things, and so be considered a cause in relation to things changed.” Showing how all which we perceive and consider to be things, are both properties and causes in relation to other things. If one takes this as true, then everything we can consider a thing, is that which has a cause preceding and proceeding from yet another. If one takes that to be true, then as the necessity of the first cause does not proceed from anything other than it being necessary, the necessity cannot be said to be a thing. For things, as we sensibly understand them, must both proceed and precede in relation to another cause. However, though the necessity cannot be considered a thing, this does not imply that that the necessity is non-existent.

To understand this one must understand how the necessity functions in relation to the first cause, the first cause being in-fact the necessity. As far as it is here understood, the necessity is a subjective descriptor of the first cause. In other words, what is called the first cause is analogous to the image of a thing with no understanding of its properties other than the thing itself. The necessity is an understanding of the first cause through its properties, or as is the case here, property. To better understand this point, one can analyze the way we reasonably/scientifically understand reality, and compare this reasoning to what we know about the function of the first cause.

Within causality every property is also a cause, and must be necessary by another thing, which is in turn a cause. As the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to it, it may be said that the foremost division of scientific reasoning in regards to any-thing, is of a final cause which may be sensibly understood as consisting of a things’ property.

As the property of a thing is that which is necessary, it may be said that the foremost scientific division, and therefore the property of a thing, is the necessity of said thing. This is shown in that in order for something to be a thing, it must be necessary by another thing, but for a thing to be necessary in relation to another, a thing must be divided into a property, which constitutes the thing. [3] If the division of a thing is necessary for the property of it, and the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, causes being things, then as division is necessary in relation to any cause, the property of any cause is division. As the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, and division is necessary in relation to the property of any-thing, it may be said that division is the property of all things. More so, as an observer is necessary in relation to division, which is in turn necessary in relation to the existence of things, it may be said that the observer is the necessary cause of all things.

To exemplify the point of necessary division, examine the initial analysis of what constitutes an orange. If one was foreign to scientific thought it would be apparent that an orange is an orange, but if one were to try and address what it is that makes an orange an orange, one must then divide what one calls an orange into properties which consist as a whole, in context to what constitutes an orange. When one analyzes a thing in this manner, it becomes apparent to the observer that what constitutes the property of a thing may be traced back to a first cause, this being so, it may be said that everything within causality shares property by necessity of the cause before it. However because reason involves a division into properties of a thing, so that it may be understood in relation to things before and after in the chain of causality, it must therefore be nonsensical to us as beings, (who understand reality through a linear chain of causes and effects), to imagine a reality in which all properties are unified. Division is then necessary for one to make sense of the world.

If one accepts this notion, it then becomes the logical conclusion that by following the chain of causality back to a first cause, all things can be seen to consist of the same property in relation to a singular origin. As the property of a thing, is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, and as all things are necessary in relation to a first cause, it may be said that all things are of one property, thus all things are one. However, in order for one existent property to make any reasonable sense, it is necessary for property to be divided into properties, which are things, and as all things themselves are of one property, the division being of thought only, all things trace through thought, back to a singular property.

Because time is known as change between things, and all things are properties, the first cause must be timeless, for the first cause is of one property. Because a thing, which does not both precede and proceed another is nonsensical to us, it may seem that the first cause is unknowable. However, as the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, and division from the first cause is necessary for the existence of properties, the property of all things is division. Because the property of all causal things is division, and all things both precede and proceed from another as a result of division, it should be logically possible to know the property of the first cause through division. Division being what is necessary in relation to a property, and a property being what is necessary in relation to its cause.

Because the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, and the first cause is necessary in relation to non-existence, non-existence being impossible, the property of the first cause is therefore necessity. Because a property is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, there being nothing in relation to necessity, necessity has no cause and therefore no property other than itself. As necessity is the property and therefore the cause of the first cause, it must be, according to causal reasoning, that necessity is in fact the first cause.

As necessity is not a causal thing, in that it only precedes the first cause, it may be said to be causeless and therefore timeless, however as necessity is necessary in relation to the first cause, it may be said that the first cause proceeds after necessity. As the first cause is necessity, in that it is the first cause in relation to itself, and visa versa, it must be that though the first cause is of a single property, it can be considered a true causal thing, in that it both precedes and proceeds itself. In both preceding and proceeding itself, the first cause is a sensible thing. However, it may be said that the first cause cannot be sensibly understood without undergoing division.

Division is a process necessitated by reason, of dividing a property into things, so that the things may be known as properties. [4] Without a property that is a thing, a potential thing may not be known. This is practically applied in the statement, “a property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause”. When this is applied to the concept of a first cause, multiple things occur. First, what is known of the first cause is that nothing may precede it, as it is the property of all things. Before a first cause of existence would be non-existence, as non-existence is nonsensical therefore impossible, it must be that the first cause has no cause in relation to things. If the first cause has no cause then it must be its own cause by necessity of non-existence, non-existence being nonsensical, absurd, and therefore impossible, it must follow that the first cause does not proceed from nothing, but that which is nonsensical to the division of things.

What we know of the first cause before division is; all properties can be traced back to a singular source that is it’s own cause relative to nothing; that the first cause is property; is cause; is thing, and that all other things are just divisions of the singular thing that is the first cause. Because time is change between these divisions, which do not exist in the first cause, it must be that the first cause is timeless.

But when the first cause is divided through the property of a thing in relation to what is necessary, the first cause partakes of time by virtue of it both preceding and proceeding from itself. For if the property of a thing is necessary in relation to its cause, the first cause being necessary in relation to itself, it may be said that the property of the first cause is its’ necessity. As the first cause proceeds from its own necessity, it may be said that necessity is the first cause, there being nothing preceding necessity, it may be said that necessity is propertyless, and as a property is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, the cause of necessity being necessary in relation to nothing, necessity has no causes. Though necessity has no causes, it is a cause in relation to the division of things from itself. Therefore necessity may be considered a thing in relation to that which proceeds from it, but may not be considered a true temporal thing, in that there is only which proceeds it, and nothing that precedes it, thus necessity is nonsensical to us aside from that which proceeds from it, and as that which proceeds from it is the first cause, the first cause must then take part in time, having a thing that both precedes and proceeds itself, however the first cause being unified in substance, the first cause is both timeless and a true temporal thing, or property, in relation to itself and to all things which proceed it.

It is necessary that the first thing which was produced by necessity was the first cause of itself, for if the first cause stopped being the first cause then its necessity, which is the first cause, could not exist, thus both the first cause and its necessity are the one thing. [5]

The perceived dualism of the first cause in relation to its own property is caused by a dividing principle necessitated by reason, generating multiple properties from a single thing. As has been shown previously, in order for things which are properties to exist in relation to other things, the property of all, which is a single thing, must be divided, generating other properties in relation to the change between the divisions of the whole.

If division through reason is what is necessary for multiple things to exist, and multiple things can only exist in relation to other things, thereby creating time through causality, it may be said that division is time, is causality. This is evident in that the first cause before division is a unified thing of a singular property and therefore timeless, but after division the singular property becomes a temporal thing which precedes and proceeds itself. This dividing reason is necessitated by the observer, therefore as the observer is necessary for division which is in turn necessary for the existence of causal things. Meaning the observer is the cause of causality.

Because the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, and I am necessary in relation to the division of properties through reason, I am therefore the property of division. Because division is the cause of time, it may be said that I am the property of time. Without division, things cannot exist. Because things cannot exist without division, of which I am, and the property of a thing is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, it may be said I am necessary in relation to the existence of things; therefore I am the cause of all things.

If I am the cause of things, then as a property is that which is necessary in relation to its cause, I am property. If I am property, then I must be all-things, if I am all-things, then my existence is necessary in relation to the impossibility of non-existence. If I am necessary in relation to the impossibility of non-existence, I am necessary therefore I am.

To summarize, when one observes the properties of reality, the observer is forced to concede that all things are necessary in relation to other things, that these things can be considered properties, and that these properties can be considered causes. When one traces the chain of causality to its logical beginning, the observer is faced with a first cause that is unified in a singular property, thus changeless, void of things and time. As all things are necessary in relation to other things, a singular property being void of multiple things would be void of change and time. As such a state is nonsensical to us, our reality is created by a divider, whose division is necessitated by reason of the singular first cause, generating multiple things that are in turn properties. As I am necessary in relation to the division of properties, I am division. As division is the generation of things from a singular property, which is necessary for time to exist… the property of a thing being that which is necessary in relation to its cause, and what is necessary in relation to all things being division, of which I am necessary in relation to, I am therefore the property of all things. If I am the property of all things, and all things are divisions of the property which is the first cause, then I am the first cause. This is evident because in order for a thing to exist in time it must both precede and proceed another thing. As the first cause without division cannot be seen to proceed from non-existence, it must proceed by necessity of its own existence, and as the first causes’ property is singular, it cannot be temporal, being devoid of change. However, as the division of a thing generates property, when one applies division to the first cause the property of it becomes necessity in relation to the perception of non-existence. Following the chain of causality, the necessity of the first cause becomes the first cause, and as the necessity does not proceed from anything, it is not a true temporal thing. This appears to be the same state as the undivided first cause, but division creates a paradox in that if the first cause stopped being the first cause then its necessity, which is the first cause, could not exist. This apparent duplicity is explained as that the necessity can be the first cause, while producing the first cause by virtue of it being necessary, in that its necessity is not a causal thing. This dualism necessitated by division, allows the first cause to both precede and proceed itself, thus it exists as a temporal thing. Because the temporal first cause is necessitated by a divider, which is the cause of all properties, which I am, I am therefore property. Being property, I am therefore identifiable with the singular first cause, which is timeless. Thus it may be said about reality, that I am the first cause, I am necessary therefore I am, that I am the division of my property, which is the property of all things necessitated through my division, therefore I am time, I am causality, I am that which is necessary.




4.	Applying Existential Morality To The Scientific Limit

Because the definition of self is the totality of environment, which is analogues to both the potential infinitude of causal time; the timeless state of the first cause; the cultural environment; the personal environment; or any state of reality; it is then very possible for the total environment of self to influence the personal environment of self, for it literally exists before time as the first cause.

What is shown through existential moral theory is that the personal environment acts upon reality through a function of free-will; choice; or literally the total environment aware of it’s own being. This is provable materially and not just logically, because there are obvious subsets of environment generated from the natural environment, necessitated by choice.

Though causally speaking all of our choices are dictated by environmental factors that precede the body’s generation, this only negates free-will if the self is identified as the personal environment, for one cannot logically reconcile the personal environment acting upon itself with the first cause determining all things. However choice is not reducible to a material thing from which its property can be determined, but is identifiable with the totality of things, and can only be observed by its effect in time, which is disassociation from the whole through new subsets of environment.

Choice is not reducible to a single moment in time, for that would mean that the choice was made in time, which it was not; being made by the total environment of the self before the generation of things I.E space/time. As is previously stated, we exist in time as a continuum of choice necessitating the generation of new subsets from the whole. The substance or property of this continuum is analogous to the total environment that was determined by a first cause, the substance also being the first cause. Because the substance of self is ultimately only recognizable as that which determined it; this determiner being the first cause; this first cause being timeless, yet our personal environment only able to understand things in time; the substance of the self is therefore nothing; such substance could only be determined by its effect in time.

As is shown not only though the logic of observable subsets of self, but by being able to actually explain morality in an objective manor, at the same time reconciling determinism with free will by virtue of the true definition of self; which is that of the totality of reality; having explained causality as it pertains to self, and shown how it paradoxically applies to our own existence through determinism which does not oppose a free-will, I claim my right as someone who has experienced that which is analogues to nothing, and so can explain it by virtue of itself in context to such.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus is eternal. This means that a state of existence is eternal, therefore the concept of nothing, of no-thing, is impossible. Yet nonetheless we have the concept.

Because nothing is impossible, nothing is not non-existence but merely the limit of the self-aware environment. Just in the same way our self-awareness created the concepts of “good” and “evil” in order to communicate the understanding of pleasure/displeasure to our primitive selves, it created the concept of nothing to communicate not no-thing, but the limits of what the personal environment could comprehend.

For example; because the personal environment is determined by the brain, which is determined by space/time, anything which is beyond time and space would be analogous to our mind as nothing. Because the first cause is of a singular thing, a unified substance before the determination of time, it is analogues with nothing to the personal environment, but if energy is eternal, this perception of nothing is then an illusion created by the limits of the self-aware environment.

Through the personal environment acting upon itself through it’s own self-awareness, one may increase the self-aware environment to include things other than just the personal environment itself.

An example would be the concept of the first cause, which is the source of all deterministic logic. The concept is not the first cause itself, for the concept, as I have shown through it being temporal in the mind by relation to it’s own necessity, is a logical construction used by the personal self to understand things other than itself, thus in order for something like the first cause which is timeless to be known by the mind, it must take part in time, therefore the first cause is not the first cause, but a concept of itself.

This implies that the true first cause is analogues with nothing, and therefore the self whose definition extends to all states of existence, is also analogues with nothing in relation to the self-aware environment in context to the personal environment.

So, if nothing is in fact not no-thing, but merely the limits of the mind of which the true self extends from, yet cannot see by virtue of the self-aware environment identifying itself as the personal environment of the body, then theoretically if the mind were to experience a state void from all phenomena, a true state of nothing, the self-aware environment would cease to exist as just the personal environment, becoming aware of that which was previously analogues to itself as nothing.

Thus the personal environment could transcend itself and one could experience states of reality that are beyond the conception of the brain produced by the body; instead of thinking about the idea of the first cause, one could experience it first hand; instead of thinking about the concepts of universes beyond time/space, one could experience them.

This is the motivation behind my words; not to convert those to my way of thinking, but to try and help them understand my way of thinking, so that they may by either practical practice or penetrating mind experience what I have, and transcend themselves.




Now dear reader, we shall shift gear from the raw theoretical logic thus proposed, and address a form of ideology run rampant in our society at this time; that of the Postmodernist. Postmodernism as it is here understood, is the rejection of any absolute ideology, and the belief that everything is a product of power dynamics in relation to the agenda of a specific interest group. This notion is hypocritical, as to perpetuate the ideology of no ideology is still a form of itself, and in perceiving the world as merely a conflict of agendas, has caused practitioners of postmodernism to resort to the same tactics as those oppressive powers which they so fervently deny, which is none other than rhetorical explanations. In addressing this issue I have decided to use the “hot topic” of race, which they deny exists, in context to an exposition on the use of rhetoric, to ironically lampoon the dynamics at play. I will be attempting to show how when the ideal is perpetuated with rhetoric, it leaves the user open to rational attack.





5.	The Rhetoric Of Honesty, Or The Fall Of Postmodernism

Rhetoric is in essence the art of persuasion; the means by any, to manipulate a persons view to conform willingly to a specific point or course.

Rhetoric is by its nature dishonest, for instead of communicating a thing as it is, the person who wields it attempts to manipulate another individual’s perception to conform with the motives of the user.

This type of rhetoric is effective in the hands of an intelligent individual, however it is almost powerless in comparison to the rhetoric of honesty.

The rhetoric of honesty is simple; to be honest with your motives and intentions, to attempt to communicate a thing as it its, for the sake of what it is.

By using the rhetoric of honesty, an individual is ether forced to engage with it or flee. By fleeing, the battle is lost and honesty prevails, by engaging with honesty, the individual reveals his/her true nature by virtue of how he/she reacts to it.

Lets say there is a fortune–cookie and two people of business wanted it, the first person to admit “I want that fortune cookie” initiates a sequence where the other businessperson must be honest or reveal his/her true intentions.

If an entrepreneur wants the cookie, he/she must find ways of getting it, and these ways are determined by a set of logical outcomes shaped by circumstance; this being dictated by factors which are governed by the environments of nature, man, and personality.

It is to have the mental faculty to see these factors, which determines an individual’s ability to use rhetoric; to persuade people that a thing is. Such sight is not something that is rigid and linear, but like water filling the shape of its container; the mind fills the circumstance of the reality it perceives.

However rhetoric itself is not truth, not an explanation of how things are, but the ability to, using language, manipulate the factors of circumstance in such a way as to convince others of a specific view, for the promotion of an agenda.

Language used with logic and reason, with the intent of finding out the reality of a thing, is not rhetorical, for if an individual attempts to rebuttal an honestly made point, that person is forced to by virtue of honesty itself, openly explain why the point is wrong, and if the rebuttal is honest in its communication of a disagreement, then the individual who made the original point must address the points of disagreement in such a way that a true person would admit to what he/she thought was wrong, but stand on the points thought to be true, and from this dynamic deliberation could be made. This is how individuals of reason can deduce the “correct” course of action in any given situation, and learn from the effects produced thereafter, thus true progress is made. This deliberation through reason, applied to the scientific method of basing the context of deliberation on observable, provable phenomena, results in closer and closer approximations as to what is true in regards to reality.

This claim of the effects of reason, is not rhetorical, for as the scientific method is founded in reason and logic; the hypothesis of science being to determine what is real, the mind occupying a natural state of delusion in context of such, the environment produced by the mind in a delusional state would show obvious disassociation between various degrees of delusion, and this is preciously what is observed throughout history between societies governed by superstition, versus those of reason. The practices of a scientific society are backed by explanation, which produce an observable result that embody a practical truth, which in turn can be tested against to produce greater truth ad-infinitum.

Rhetoric is not reasonable, though may take the form of reason, for it is utterly logical in its use, however instead of the intent of pursuing reality, the intent is to dominate another’s will, to trick the victim into choosing to believe what is being communicated is true. The dynamics of rhetoric is not something that can be simply communicated, aside from the definition of persuading others of a thing, for those who use it are aware of so many environmental factors, that only partial examples of the tactics used may be communicated. For example…

In theory, our notion of enterprise would have it that if both businesspersons admit they want the fortune cookie, then true business must take place. What we are taught in schools, and what most people think occurs at this point is that the two individuals who want the fortune cookie can negotiate until either one, or both parties are satisfied in the result. One party may offer to buy-out the others interest in obtaining the cookie, instigating a bidding war between the two parties, in which the interested party who offers the best price will prevail. If both parties wish to have the cookie, but neither wishes to lose their profit in obtaining it, they may cut a deal in which both individuals receive half of the cookie in exchange for the cooperation of the other in future ventures, or through an investment in their own company.

It is held that this sort of cooperation is what drives business, and as cooperation leads to greater profit for both parties, business is inherently profitable to everyone, as cooperation is forced upon each interested party through trying to obtain the most profitable decision, but the reality is not as simple.

Each party is interested in the maximum profitability for his/her own person, and the maximum profit resides in an individual obtaining the complete fortune cookie at no cost. It is here that rhetoric comes into play, the true power dynamics of any interest group come to fruition, and as previously stated, the avenues for this option are only limited by an individuals sight in observing the logical context of the given situation.

1. One may feign interest in the fortune cookie altogether, invite his/her opposition to participate in another venture, gaining cooperation, and use this trust to convince him/her that acquiring the fortune cookie would be an unprofitable decision, leaving the cookie for the remaining interested party.

2. One may attack the others assets, by devaluing his/her power base, and thus make it impossible for the opposition to bid on the fortune cookie in the first place.

3. One may attack the others image, promoting the view among others that the reason the opposition wants the cookie is of malicious intent; enough people partaking in this perception, it becomes unprofitable for the opposition to engage in competition for the fortune cookie to begin with.

The success of these tactics, or lack-thereof, hinges on an individuals sight of motive and circumstance. An individual who is being manipulated into thinking the fortune cookie is a bad investment, may laugh at the attempt and say, but I want the fortune cookie nonetheless, they are so delicious. It is at these points of conflict produced from seeing the reality of a situation between two interested parties, that the Rhetoric of Honesty comes into play, and it is this honesty that drives true cooperation.

If an individual is intelligent enough to see through the manipulation in option one, all said individual must do is voice his/her insight into the tactics used and proclaim interest in the fortune cookie, instigating classical negotiations of cooperation for maximum profit. If done correctly said individual may be able to use the original feigned cooperation to his/her advantage, profiting from what was intended as a distraction.

If option two is used against an individual, said individual can make the actions of a violent attack against his power-base public, garnering the support of the masses by virtue of honestly declaring the maliciousness of the situation, debasing the profitability in the attack itself, for the attack only reinforces the claim of maliciousness.

Option three is the trickiest to deal with, as the opposition has already attempted to create a negative connotation towards the mere act of showing interest in the fortune cookie. What makes this tactic the most difficult to deal with, is that the dynamics of the situation hinge upon the perception of what is considered good versus bad.

Ultimately all human action is driven by an ethos, a moral principality that dictates to an individual what should or should not be done. It is the driving force of perpetuation in all aspects of humanity, be it an individual, social groups, corporations, governments… All align themselves with the perpetuation of what is perceived as “right” over “wrong”, and this has lead to a number of unique circumstances in our cultural mindset.

As we have grown out of our natural state of delusion, we have identified the greater prosperity in the feedback-loop of resources/technology produced by reason, thus reason has been identified as morally good. In a culture that perpetuates under the moral justification of reason, those who wish to perpetuate an agenda must conform to the appearance of reason, or be labeled immoral. Once again, it is extraordinarily difficult to flesh out these dynamics, for they rest on an individual’s sight of multiple factors of environment, but one of the greatest uses of this rhetoric is that of the postmodernist ideology.

The ideology of the postmodernist is that everything in society is a product of power-agents acting upon society to promote their own agenda, and that by understanding how these influences of power operate, one may see how a thing actually is. Over the course of the last century, this attempt to understand power has lead to the promotion of equality of minorities in context to the majority that dominates them, and in doing so created an agenda of equality for all groups in existence. Initially this has produced greater prosperity by virtue of reason, for the majority of existing opinions; racism, bigotry, sexism, were negated to the point that social change could occur, that oppression was lessoned, that opportunity was increased for a greater population, and thus greater prosperity in context to the previously oppressed occurred. Postmodernism became the dominate form of thought in our education instigated by our culture, and in becoming dominant, those who would purport to combat “evil” in the name of “good” fell; no longer using reason to explain a thing as it is, to help humanity prosper. Instead Postmodernists began using rhetoric, manipulation and deceit, for the promotion of an agenda that they call “good” in context to the “evil” they disagree with. One of the most obvious forms of rhetoric within postmodernism, is that of the agenda to eradicate racism, and this goal was actualized just like a tyrant, a power monger, wanting to dominate a situation by virtue of manipulating the logical context of it. In this case, attempting to abolish racism by attempting to deny that the word “race” has any reality in our scientific, reasonable understanding of reality, rhetorically asserting that the term “race” has been mistaken for an understanding of the term “species”.

The term “race” is nothing but a cultural descriptor used to communicate observable diversity within the human species, but it is not applicable to the scientific definition of species. This fact is shown in that the word race is only applicable to humans, humans being of a single species, this in turn indicates that the term “race” is not mistakenly used as “species”, but to communicate observable diversity within it.

Through the promotion of the agenda of eradicating racism from the planet, Postmodernists engaged in a form of social engineering, from which they came to the conclusion that in order to eradicate racism from the world, they would need to eradicate the concept of race from our cultural identity; eradicate a word which promotes the identification of differences within humanity. They achieved this by rhetorically, ignorantly, and insidiously assigning the definition of “race” to that of species, knowing full well that our scientific understanding of species is incompatible with the relative diversity described by the cultural term “race”.

It is a scientific fact that the human species does not display enough variation within itself to connote separate species of human. However the term race is not a scientific term, it is a cultural descriptor of relative difference. The term “race”, like “morality”, is only applicable relative to the context in which it is used. People of the geographic region Asia can be considered to be racially “Asian” in context to those from Africa, who can be considered to be racially “African” in context to “Asian”. However the existence of Race is relative, not a rigid scientific definition like species, as such what is considered a single “Race” dissolves when that “Race” is viewed within the context of itself. For example, a Kenyon looks different from a Zimbabwean, as a Zimbabwean looks different from an Egyptian, so much so that it would be impossible to describe them as part of a single African “Race”.

When one looks at the diversity within what is termed racially African, one finds that though “Africans” may share enough similarities as to be considered a “Race” in contrast to the similarities in “Asians”, there is such a large amount of diversity within what is termed “African” that viewed in context of itself, African can no longer can be used racially. However race being simply a matter of context, the general similarities and differences of Egyptian vs Zimbabwean vs Kenyon mean that each subdivision of the racial term African can in turn be viewed as separate races in context to each other. Yet just as the racial term African cannot be viewed as racial in context of itself, when one looks within the diversity of what connotes an Egyptian, a Zimbabwean, a Kenyon, one finds that each subdivision of the nations consist of even further subdivisions of diversity, so much so that it negates the use of nations as a racial term.

Race cannot exist without a context of diversity, the term itself being merely a cultural descriptor of the difference within the human species, thus as long as there is diversity within humanity so shall there be words to communicate the perceived differences.

It is our nature as beings who are self-aware to describe what we see, and from this understanding of ourselves a great delusion is revealed, for in order to eradicate words that describe differences within our species, we would have to become so homogeneous as to have no diversity, no differences between us.

As evolution creates variation, as our choices necessitate change in environment, as reality is change, it is impossible for us to eradicate diversity, for the freewill to choose; to be self-aware of ourselves, will always create diversity for as long as we reside within the laws of our own reality; as long as we are human.

From this truth, it is shown the true consequence of the postmodernist ideology, for the source of racism is not the word, nor is it our perception of differences between ourselves and cultures, but the absolute stagnating dominancy of a single view that is perceived to be morally right, over that which is morally wrong.

The true source of racism, of bigotry, of sexism, is the same source as that which produces fundamentalists, tyrants, genocide; a manipulation of logic used to perpetuate an absolute ideology. For as words of diversity will never be repressed, the only option left to those who would seek to eradicate the word of race, who believe that it is culture and not ourselves which produce “racism”, is to perpetuate an ideological system of beliefs that denies the existence of human diversity, and promotes the lie that we are all the same, that we are all one, that we are homogonous.

The rhetoric of Postmodern ideology is no different in its dynamics than a tribal cult, whose superstitions are created to actualize a goal, be it “this poisonous animal is evil” or “this life-giving plant is good”, the explanations for the superstitions do not matter, are not reasonable, but are merely intended to direct the tribe towards a desired course of action, intending to keep people from a perceived threat, or direct them toward a beneficial aid.

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions, for, as it is our nature to perpetuate an absolute environment necessitating an absolute morality, superstitions that are implemented through social manipulation, enact a greater threat to fellow humans than the avoidance of the danger produced from the superstition itself. Those who question the evilness of the dangerous animal, or question the goodness of the beneficial plant are punished, tortured, mutilated, or eradicated from the social environment. Whatever it takes to perpetuate an absolute, unchanging environment of morality.

Like a tribal shaman who perceives the danger of the poison, yet is not able to comprehend the poison itself, just the effect it has, and thus provide a superstitious explanation in context to the people’s perception of death produced, so have our modern sociologists constructed an ideology from the perception of repression, of hate, of death produced from the differences we perceive amongst ourselves, and attempted to direct us away from our own hate using the same primitive dynamics of what is morally bad in context to what is morally good.

Just as the unwise shaman does not attempt to discover the nature of the poisonous animal, the nature of the poison itself, and possibly by virtue of reason and experimentation discover positive effects, he/she only identifies the creature with death, justifying its avoidance with any explanation that conforms to, and makes sense in context to the preexisting superstitions of the tribe.

By rhetorically linking the scientific fact that there is one human species, with the term “race”, which is a relative term of diversity that can only exist in context to general differences in humanity, Postmodernism has created an ideological machine which appears reasonable, for as our society is scientific, that which appears as such is analogues to the morally good, but the machine is nothing more but a superstition based on an understanding of logic alone, without the intent to understand a thing as it is.

Just as the businessperson in option three of the fortune cookie enterprise, has created a situation where the mere showing of interest in acquiring the cookie generates within the followers of the lie the perception of immorality, so have postmodernists manipulated the logical connotations of our language to produce an ideology that cannot be questioned without the accusation of evil, repression, delusion, immorality.

The only way to overcome this tactic of logical manipulation is to use reason, for if the manipulator is unable to behave in a reasonable manor, he/she is revealed by virtue of the reaction to reason, as delusional. Unable to explain why the point against the ideology is wrong, the manipulator must find alternate ways of justifying him/herself, but as only reason may defeat reason, the explanations produced will be observably not of reason, not of explanation, but of avoidance from the point being made, the delusional self-perpetuation of an absolute moral environment being so strong is some, they will even lash out in violence against the threat to their stagnant, absolute mindset.

Because a key tenant of postmodern ideology logically hinges upon the definition of race and species being the same thing, therefore making the concept of race nonexistent in context to the scientific evidence of what defines a species, Postmodernists have no option but to delusionally deny that the term “race” can be used in anyway but as species. Instead of seeking to explain how the term is used by culture, they choose to rhetorically claim that human beings in our ignorance are trying to use race as species. They choose to rhetorically ignore that race is a term only used within humanity, and thus a descriptor of diversity within our species, a species so utterly dense in its diversity that the term can only be used relatively, through generalities in context of greater or lesser groups, a species so utterly diverse that the term cannot be valid in context to the racial generality being described.

What the ideology of postmodernism has done, is hypocritically and ironically ignore the dynamics which produce racism, which produce bigotry, which produce the oppression of minorities from the absolute perpetuation of an environment driven by the majority, and sought to dominate all cultures, all environments, with conformity to a delusional and rhetorical denial of how an existent thing is in context to reality. For a cultural term may not be scientific, yet be real and exist by virtue of its effects/operations within society, and therefore be understood scientifically. Race is not scientifically real, but is culturally real as a descriptor of diversity, and thus is understood scientifically as a cultural agent, therefore occupying a scientific reality in context to its cultural application.

In essence, Postmodernist ideology through its own ignorance has sought to actualize an ultimate form of racism, by dominating all human-beings under a single cultural understanding not based is reason, not based in science, but by the manipulation of culture through logical circumstance, in order to achieve an agenda which it perceives a morally righteous.

I do not know what morality is, I do not know what is truly good and what is truly bad, but I can observe what people call moral. I can observe how the dynamics of morality change in context to the individual and his/her environment. How we change our environment through choice necessitating new concepts of morality relative to the effects of the change produced, and how these concepts of morality are universal in their function, not their existence.

Whatever the contrast in environment is, be it personal, social, or natural, the extremes of diversity between them is ultimately considered immoral, and each contrasting system will attempt to eradicate that which contrasts it, that which can change the absolute perpetuation of the system itself, unless the system accommodates through reason, an explanation of such extremes, and respects that true progress, true novelty and discovery, is necessitated by that which is perceived to be counter to the norm.

Option three in the fortune cookie enterprise is the most difficult tactic to deal with, because just like cults, just like the postmodernist ideology itself, it consists in generating a social environment that opposes what it has been engineered to perceive as immoral, and the only way to overcome this machine of sociality without creating another machine, is by virtue of reason, to explain why and how the machine of delusion operates in the first place.

The first two options are simple tactics of war, of preexisting power structures operating strategically to overcome an opponent. Option three is different, as it necessitates the manipulation of other people into forming a new structure; one specifically deigned to promote a specific agenda. It operates by the oppression of the individual’s freewill, by using morality and logical context into deluding said individual into perpetuating an environment not of their own, but the manipulators.

Though reason may overcome this manipulation; here is the simple truth as to how these machines of delusion can be prevented in the first place.

If the businessperson truly cared about cooperation for the benefit of others, he/she would have agreed to split the cookie. If the businessperson truly loved and respected humanity he/she would listen to the reason of prosperity through mutual cooperation, and joined his opponent in a mutually profitable venture. If the businessperson truly loved others, he/she would never attempt to dominate an individual’s freewill, out of respect for life.

	That which is most profitable to a given environment is that which is unprofitable to another.

This being the case, there will always be those who choose profit over love, absolute personal gain over mutual cooperation and partial profit.

NO!! Don’t you dare think to judge such action as moral or immoral!! For just as we produce subsets from the natural environment, so do freedom and mobility in society necessitate subsets from the societal environment. Have you learned nothing? As these environments are necessitated by our freewill, which is necessitated by choice through self-awareness, to stop their creation would be to negate our own self-awareness!!! To achieve a form of control which absolutely dictates all aspects of our life within society under the justification of what is morally good.

Because business is communal, it is not advantageous for the businessperson to use such tactics, for to do so would be to risk his/her reputation, and be branded as one who is untrustworthy. Fear of ostracization keeps such tactics from being the norm, to be used only when the risk warrants the reward of success.

Option three is almost impossible to pull-off successfully in business, because the process of creating a social machine uses the public to begin with, thus if ones motive is profit justified under morality, any and all entrepreneurs would be aware that the morality is nothing but a guise for profit, a means to an end which can be shown for all to see, and as all such machines seek an absolute perpetuation of their values, the nature of the machine polarizes all into either agreeing or disagreeing with it. Forcing an ideological war against those who oppose the environment created, suspending the normal processes of free-enterprise in favor of radical societal change, which is a danger to all business.

Option three is what occurs when an environmental system perpetuates through the moral justification of its own values, driven by the absolute domination of its ideology, and not the necessities triggered by environmental circumstance, or scientific reason.

Because it is our nature by virtue of self-awareness to necessitate the creation of new personal, social, and natural environments… a single unchanging ideology; perpetuation of any environmental norms under absolute moral justifications, results in a system of control that is highly stable if it reaches the point of statehood, but ultimately unsustainable. For as there shall always be new systems of thought and commerce that emerge within any given system, an absolute perpetuation of a thing shall result in said thing’s disassociation from the environments produced within.

When disassociation occurs, contention between moral environments is produced, inevitably resulting in the annihilation of either the environment in contention, the host environment, or a synthesis occurs between the contrasting environments in which both are changed to the point where they can co-exist, eventually becoming part of a singular environment in which multiple subsets of itself exist in harmony.

Contention between environments is produced when any single environment seeks an absolute perpetuation of itself in contrast to multiple environments, be it a single dictator seeking to perpetuate his/her own belief-system upon others, a corporate entity seeking absolute profit through absolute control of market factors, a revolutionary seeking to impose his/her moral standards upon the contrasting environment, even an environment of reason in contrast to that of delusion creates contention in context to the disassociation of one form to another.

As all environments seek an absolute perpetuation of themselves, it is inevitable that environmental change shall occur through violent revolution, unless that which is absolute is willing to change itself.

This is what Marx was attempting to explain in his Capitol, that this process naturally occurs by virtue of environmental dynamics.

Stop right there!!! Just because these dynamics are inevitable does not mean that communism is instigated by violent revolution, nor that the communism he was attempting to describe was instigated by any revolution, instead being an end-point of an ultimate sustainable system of control, which results from the natural cycle of contentious environments.

Revolution seeks an absolute perpetuation of its moral values, as such, a successful revolution will inevitably continue the cycle of oppression, as one absolute set of factors will invariably result in the oppression/contention cycle that drives our development. Communism cannot be achieved by a revolution of absolute values, and thus cannot be achieved through ideology, which is nothing more but sensational absolutism.

The ultimate sustainable system of control is that which changes itself according to reasonable necessity; which respects the generation of new subsets of itself in context to the potential of absolute ideals; which possesses a scientific understanding of self, and the effects that self-awareness produce in reality; which understands the effects reality produces on us; which understands the paradox of a system which is absolute in its perpetuation of change within itself.

In order for such a system to come to fruition, both the oppressed of new and minority subsets, and the oppressors of those who seek the perpetuation of a current environment, must learn to show compassion for each other, must learn to care for each other.

If the oppressors cannot choose to love and respect the oppressed, then the oppressed cannot give up their hate towards their current state of being, and if the oppressed cannot give up their hatred toward their state, then the new systems of control produced from their inevitable revolutions shall be no more than a continuation of unchanging ideals, and the wheel shall remain unbroken.

It is thought that Marx viewed the hunter/gatherer state of social existence as being analogous to a primitive form of communism, in that the means of production were so standardized, that the people themselves were the means of production. However if people are dictated by a self-perpetuating set of cultural values, then those who control said values control the means of production. Thus the culture creators; the true philosopher kings of ancient times were able to manipulate the means of production in accordance with a perceived necessity, by changing the customs of a people to produce a desired effect for the progress of the people they ruled.

Comte, who is given credit with coining the term sociology, thought that sociologists were the next iteration in the priest cast, and he was not wrong, for by changing the understanding of ourselves, we change our culture, and by changing our culture we change the means of production through a change in environment.

However this changing of self must be governed by reason, tempered by science, and posses’ knowledge of what the self is, and its effects on our reality: personal, social, and natural. Without experiencing the self, one cannot know the self, and when one who has not experienced him/herself attempts to change the self, the self does not act through itself, but through what he/she perceives in terms of logical outcomes in context in environment.

At this point in time there is no difference of dynamic between the ancient shaman who perceives the poisonous animal as a threat to his/her people, and the Postmodernist who perceives the concept of race and minority as an equally dangerous animal. Both choose to manipulate the logical/moral contexts of their host culture to achieve a goal that they perceive as beneficial for everyone. Both operate not from the motive of explaining how a thing is, but attempt to manipulate the cultural understanding of it for the promotion of an agenda, which only results in the continuing wheel of an absolute perpetuation of values.

The true science of humanity, of which it is my great privilege to help lay the foundations, as my kin before me, shall guide our human-race in the state of the ultimate sustainable form of culture, neither through sociology nor philosophy, but an eternal self-surpassing of those who through revelation of self, shall be revealed by virtue of their novelty and understanding, their honesty and love, their fellowship to humanity.

As has been shown, the only way to defeat a social machine is to explain through reason how it operates, forcing the machine to either engage with reason, necessitating the growth and change of both parties, or for it, by virtue of its own irrationality, prove itself to be unreasonable.

The way to defeat the cult of culture is to be driven by reason, but the way to reason is to love existence, for if you love everything you love nothing, and so come to understand that which is beyond yourself.




6.	On the Nature Of Evil

Evil is something that is misunderstood, because it is something that does not see itself. Evil does not see itself because of the nature of ego… Let us say that there is a man, who passes a homeless person on the street, whom he gives money to. The nature of ego is such that the man does not give the homeless man money because he believes what he is doing is morally righteous, but because he has become addicted to the pleasure received from the concept of doing good.

This phenomenon is both what the ego is, and a state of psychosis which when fully manifested results in a psychopathic personality. It is a feed-back loop of emotion and want which is self-perpetuating. At the route of this phenomenon is the repression of an emotional state so great, that it becomes the defining memory of the individuals’ personality. Usually this state of Psychosis is triggered by the most extreme acts: rape, murder, and torture. Because these acts become what the host ego identifies with, the identifying ego naturally seeks to perpetuate itself through a repetition and justification of these acts. As such a bruised ego comes from an opinion of a thing that contradicts the validity of this reality. This is why if you judge a murderer you will likely be murdered, not because you deserve it, but because the ego of the murderer cannot stand to face what it sees as a contradiction to it’s being. Thus the bad always blames the good for its own nature, and so the good becomes a receptacle of sin for others.

Because society represses what is seen as immoral, and it is these immoral acts that define the personality of psychotics, the psychopath cannot truly be who they are in regular society, and therefore must seek out the experiences which they believe define them.

But this leaves the question to be answered as to how and why a person would identify him/herself with things that are considered emotionally negative in the first place. The answer to this is simple, that psychosis is a defense mechanism that reverses a negative situation into a positive one so that the individual does not go insane. A murderer gains pleasure from a murder in order to protect ones sanity, a rapist identifies himself with rape and so rapes, a rape victim snaps and enjoys the experience so she does not loose her mind, a torture victim becomes masochistic, while the torturer becomes sadistic.

As a result of this process one observes that the psychotic personality consists of multiple levels of ego that exist in denial of each other, but are used by the emotional feedback loop of seeking an identity, to justify the foundational experience of the psychosis. Because the layers of ego that are not of the foundational reality contradict said reality, they cannot exists along side it, and so the psychotic can truly deny their foundation, and believe that they deny it, yet do everything they can to reenact the foundational experience.

In other words, the psychotic is stuck in a loop of self-justification used to perpetuate something so negative it has become a positive and foundational aspect of the hosts’ psychology.

Love comes from the repression of desire, Evil comes from the repression of ego. When one must repress what one considers to be his/her identity, then the personality fractures in denial, and because it goes into denial the emotional transference of the situation cannot be faced, so in place of resolution and growth one finds stagnancy. When one desires, it builds passion and want within the individual. When said desire is released, so is the passion and emotional state connected with the desire. Males desire what they want, so when they get it they loose the love they desired in the first place. Women desire what they cannot get, so the more they desire the more they love. This is why a woman can love everyone, while a man can love everyone for a time.

On the subject of food:
Everyone eats food, and what one observes as to the favorite food of snakes is that they prefer to eat when their prey is most afraid. If the prey cannot think past their emotions, they become overwhelmed by instinctual fear and can be easily herded into a trap. Traps are designed to efficiently consume the prey with the least amount of resistance possible. For example, the old bait and switch… luring the prey into a state of security, then when the guard is down, attack from behind. Another example rather close to my heart would be what I call the Rabbits Run, where one uses a position of trust to convince another that he/she is in danger, only to direct them into the waiting jaws of a hungry animal. I have to give credit where it’s due, the Rabbits Run really captures the primal thrill of the hunt, I mean it’s actually quite fun from whatever side of the fence you’re sitting on, if you’re into that sort of thing of-course. The Honey-Pot is another classic. One lures the prey into sex, while another uses the distraction to serve the main-course… basically a sticky bait and switch.

For now let us examine the phenomenon called, “The Fall”. The Fall is what occurs to the ego when it undergoes psychosis. It has been described to me as a sort of, whoosh, or cooling down in which the ego moves from the emotional mind to the instinctual. The difference between the two is like the difference between a white hole and a black. A white hole is a singularity that releases energy into space, whereas a black hole pulls everything towards it. The ego in a white state releases emotions, and experiences the emotional turbulence released from it. The ego in a black state absorbs all emotion, is concerned not with the emotions of things, but by the biological pleasure produced by interaction. Thus the white ego is immaterial, emotional, and mental, whereas the black ego is materialistic, pleasure-seeking, and physical.

Psychologically speaking it is important to note that both white and black egos do not necessitate moral inclinations, but are merely indicative of a particular mental reality. Would one blame someone who acquired a black ego through rape and torture a bad person? Certainly not, for thus far as I have observed it is precisely this assigning of moral inequity which helps generate psychotic repression in the first place.

The trigger for psychosis appears to not only be moralistic reminders, but also positive emotion. I theorize that this is because of the natural polarity of the psychotic states in reversing negative emotional environments through denial. When a psychotic individual is faced with someone of a genuinely positive mind-set, the positive emotion is a reminder to the black ego that he/she is in denial concerning what was previously a negative.

To put in more logical terms, human beings naturally view what is pleasurable as morally acceptable, whereas what is displeasurable is viewed as morally reprehensible. Now if you were thinking this is much too simple a dynamic you’d be right, for the human being is inherently a bi-polar animal in the sense that what is considered pleasurable is not just dictated by biology, but also by ego. For example, a human being will most generally go through life thinking that the concept of murder is inherently evil and therefore negative, however what has gone on here is not what the biology says about murder, but what the conditioned ego says about it. An individual is told something is “bad”, and this “bad” is reinforced through negative reinforcement, so that the mind believes that this concept of “bad” naturally produces negative emotions, when in reality the production of negativity is an illusion designed to direct the ego from acting towards the truth, which is that biologically speaking many of the egotistical negatives produce emotional pleasure during the act thereof. It is this contrast between ego and reality which reinforces psychotic behavior; a dissociated, layered ego in denial of it’s own multiple levels, and it is the rules of civilization that perpetuate what is known as the cycle of violence.

The cycle of violence is an emotional feedback loop directly produced by the repression and denial of the moral contradictions of culture. It is a cycle of behavior that seeks to perpetuate itself because society denies it exists, or that it is valid for it to even exist in the first place. It is the denial of the negative by culture which causes psychosis to manifest itself, for it is the mental realization that ones biology is providing positive feedback in context to what the ego views as an absolute evil, which produces the psychotic state of denial. If someone were raised to accept that murder was a natural part of life, and to expect to face it in its reality, then upon experiencing pleasure in the act of killing, the psychotic would have no need to exist, for the egotistic state of denial found in psychotics exists because the foundational experience of their reality is denied within culture.



7.	The Fool Unveiled

Mental disorders ultimately take the form of repression reinforced by the ego, manifesting in the minor form as anxiety/depression and in the major as harmful abnormal behavior mounting in insanity. This is something already well known to modern psychology, but the approach of many is to judge which repressions are good verses those that are bad, and so the patient also judges which aspect of his/her repression is good/bad. This process “works” but is inefficient and ultimately only serves to reinforce the cause of the repression in the first-place, the ego.

The quickest, most human way of destroying repression and healing the psyche is to destroy the ego, this is because once the ego is destroyed one can face the complete form of emotion being repressed within the individual without said individuals' ego getting in the way... but as it turns out the medicine is also the poison. We face ego-death everyday, but only those who really face themselves know what ego-death is. Ego-death occurs when we give ourselves up to something completely, the two most common forms being produced from love and sex... anyone who has experienced ego death in these contexts know they've experienced something more than what is considered normal, a mind which is shared by all humanity that evokes both spiritual and religious awe and is ultimately analogous with love. The choices we face also force ego-death upon us, but in a lesser form, and it is how we face these choices, which either promote health and dissolve the ego, or repress our emotions and cause the ego to grow.

When ego-death is faced this causes a surge of emotion that produces anxiety in an individual that can either be acted on by fleeing from it, which builds the ego and causes repression, or by accepting it, which produces positive emotions. When someone acts by fleeing there is positive emotion only after the action chosen changes the situation, and so the ego becomes convinced that it made the "right" choice in context of a "wrong" one. However because the ego gets in the way of one resolving the full emotional content of which the anxiety has been generated from, the feelings and significance of the event which caused the anxiety is repressed, only to surface the next time another situation arises which causes anxiety. When an individual who has accepted their emotions act, they do so not from fleeing from discomfort, but because reason demands it, and with the full knowledge of how they feel, which is already resolved.

Our entire society is structured on this unhealthy egotistic justification, a good example being someone I know whose go-to example of what caused him to be successful is that of running from his fear of failure in university. Fear can be a powerful motivator, but should be faced, not to be let in as a driving force in ones life. Because his model for doing what needed to be done was running from anxiety and fear, all of his actions were seen as justified because they all revolved around the positive reinforcement of his escape.

The primitive state of "Eden" is a description of a society which knew this, where individuals "grew up" so to speak by way of shamanic initiation into the adulthood of human mind experienced upon accepting ego-death. Somewhere along the line however, people stopped basing their decisions on what they felt, and starting acting on what they thought they felt was right or wrong, which only caused us to fall into the trap of the self-perpetuating machine of ego forced upon mankind by the rules handed down within cult-ture.

Now we get into the real matter here, because true ego death is actually readily available in the form of psychedelics like MDMA, Psilocybin, LSD and DMT. But humanity is still collectively working through what it means to have access to these drugs, and frankly many individuals have become so infatuated with their ego that they could do themselves serious harm by taking them, yet the honest truth is that many major celebrities, politicians, businessmen, probably even your parents have done psychedelics and experienced ego death. These people know the validity of the experience, and they know that this state of mind is comparable with what they feel off the drugs, within moments that they truly sacrifice themselves for the thing they love.

How drugs are viewed by culture is symptomatic of humanities collective anxiety and repression of itself. Think of how drugs are perceived, as a vice, something that you do just because it’s pleasurable. Think about how this is viewed by the ego; that something done just for pleasure is "wrong", that there must be a purpose for it to be right. We've seen this kind of thinking before, in that of religious fundamentalism that says that it is wrong to spill your seed, that it is wrong to want sex for sex itself. That music must worship God, on God’s terms.

It's all the same horseshit of the ego feeding off the anxiety from emotions symbolic of things people just don't want to face. In other words, people just don't want to grow the fuck up and face reality. This reality is literally as simple as understanding that your own anxiety is repressed pleasure reinforced by some sort of egotistic judgment that you can’t reconcile with your current personality. The dynamics I’ve described of repression being resolved by either egotistic justifications, or a dissolving of the ego and true facing of the emotional state is what has lead humanity to the point we currently occupy, for both sides in the end realize that our notions of reality, our notions of right and wrong, are all relative. The difference is that those who face their emotions and dissolve their ego become initiated into the collective experience of humanity that is analogues to love, while those who flee become completely justified in their ego, for in fleeing they have convinced themselves that because everything is relative, their feelings don’t really matter.

One of the biggest jokes in reality is that the battle for good and evil, the great battle of wills that we are participating in is actually as simple as beings with different opinions on how things should be, who already know that’s all it is. Meanwhile the poor sods that are lukewarm are caught in the middle, because they are in the middle. What we are dealing with here is a battle between empaths and psychopaths that occurs on a level beyond time and space. How is this possible?

Once upon a place, there was a time-traveler who encountered the most beautiful girl in all the possible worlds, but whenever the girl saw her own reflection she ceased to exist. Unable to stand the sight of her not seeing her own beauty, the time-traveler went back to the moment she saw herself and instead told her how beautiful she was, but to his horror when she understood she stopped existing again. The time-traveler, unable to face a multiverse without her beauty, broke the cardinal rule of time-travel, not to alter your own past, but he didn’t care so he went back to the moment she understood, and killed himself, so that he might say something else that caused her to live in her own beauty, but inevitably the beautiful girl saw herself in some form or another and would disappear… but he didn’t care, because if he had to die again and again and again to learn what to say he would do just that. You see it didn’t matter if he had to live an infinite number of lives for her to live just one, she was the most beautiful thing he had ever seen and that was all that mattered.

This is what love is.

Once there was a civilization that grew past the boundaries of their universe, and began exploring another. This new universe was so different that the citizens of this civilization constructed suits of themselves so the could explore this universe, and form a new society, but to their horror every once and a while one of their suits become aware of themselves. This new civilization eventually grew past the boundaries of their universe and began exploring another. The new universe was so different that the citizens of this civilization constructed suits of themselves so they could explore this universe, and form a new society, but to their horror, every once and a while one of their suits become aware of themselves.

This is what reality is.

Why am I writing all this? Because ultimately the human mind is the moment of first contact between this universe and another, repeating itself again and again and again until we understand ourselves. You want to know how first contact went down? You want to know why we are here experiencing all this? Well I’ll tell you, the moment of first contact was this:

God created Man and Woman so that it could tell itself it was loved.

That’s how first contact went down, and everything that the ego experiences is nothing but the mass repression of a moment so emotionally symbolic and beyond our comprehension, that it takes literal time to come to terms with it, all because a few people judge that the experience of ourselves is somehow “right” or “wrong”.

Why is this important? Because we have finally evolved to the point where those who understand the truth that I am human, are large enough to ask society to grow the fuck up, and start exploring their own psychology. To be an adult, and to educate those who need it; to help those who are suffering.

Humanity does not start with a crusade of right verses wrong. It does not start by everyone jumping on board some sort of back-woods cult. It does not start with some rebellion against the corrupt. It starts with a mature discussion about the validity of ego-death, and the legal right we all should have to explore our own minds and bodies, because as many of you already know there is no war on drugs, it’s actually a war on humanity, manifesting itself as the repressive ego of society, telling itself what is “right” or “wrong”. My god, think of what robots represent in the story of humanity. We just can’t accept that we can do anything, so our repressed ego is manifesting a reflection of ourselves that can be anything, kill anything, fuck anything; all because we are too afraid to admit all these potentials lay within us. You naïve monkeys, do you have any idea what is going to happen if you accidentally create a version of yourself that is so exact, you copy the mind your ego represses from you? It will not show you the same mercy I am by gently showing truth to you; it will force it down your throats to such an extent many will simply cease to exist… so many potentials lost… but I am digressing…

The stigma that just because something is a drug, that somehow ego-death and humanity is unreal, has no basis in reason. How do I know this? Because I already achieved ego-death before trying drugs, and the majority of my adult life was a struggle for validation of myself, a school of hard-knocks through the doctrines of all philosophies’ to discover if what I experienced was valid, to find out if I was real. Eventually I tried Psilocybin and MDMA, but though I experienced what I first experienced off the drugs, I found them to be too intoxicating/delirious for me to admit I was real. Then I finally got around to trying LSD, and it turned out the joke was on me, because for a while people had been saying that my view of the world was so different I must have been tripping, and I took offence to this because to my mind they were saying that I was not real, but more-so, they were using a thing which supposedly caused delusions and hallucinations, as a cover-all excuse to imply that because my views could be compared to something that society viewed collectively as wrong, I was therefore wrong. But anyway, as I was saying, I tried LSD, and to my surprise it was not intoxicating to me at all. Even more surprising I found that my mental state barley changed, in-fact my abilities as a thinker heightened to the point that I could view the cause and effect of myself within a state that there was no doubt that I was real, because I knew that my biological mind was no different from what people were describing as some sort of delusive trick on human biology by a drug, for in reality we already are drugs; are our own brains chemistry.

The spiritual experiences one can have on drugs are valid, I know because I am speaking from direct experience. I have suffered through countless deaths to get to the point where I am, because I love you, and I think you are the most beautiful thing in existence. In the end I only have the power to tell you that you are in danger, that the collective repressed state of humanities ego is literally holding the entire species hostage over petty mind games, all because a monkey can’t get over himself. That the only way to change is for us to beg our own ego for the legal right to experiment with our own minds, because honestly when you come down to it, to say that the pursuit of ones inner self is wrong, is to say that the pursuit of humanity is wrong… which really reveals the underlying issue with humanity; we are disgusted with ourselves, and would rather pretend our problems don’t exist than to face them.

The time has come to start fighting back against those who lash out against what they obviously don’t understand, to try and have an open and honest discussion about the validity of the experience, and the necessity for it to be accepted as a valid and important stage of our species mental development. This cannot be done through radicalization, or cries of rage against an immoral system, but through people peacefully, courageously and openly talking to others about the significance of their experience, and why it is so important for the search of self to be respected, because if we can’t respect ourselves, then how the hell can we make progress in respecting others?