In response to Zadok001:
1. Dear friend, you misperceived the aphorism. It is not by detesting a part of the whole that one is fronted to the necessity of detesting the wholly whole. What was meant is that, as to be able to detest, for example, a culture or a religion or a country, one must detest himself, his culture, religion, and country, for these facets are a part of the bigger whole. In order to make a just judgment, one must confront not just the enemy, but the self, for the self, in many cases, is the sole enemy that perceives what are known as “enemies.”
2. You interpret this correctly and truly as intended. I ask you, now, to look at A1 again, and see how it relates, attributes, and completes your realization of A2.
5. “Realistically impossible,” you say, and to that I must disagree. Your interpretation of A2 makes it perfectly possible solely because one is to detest himself as well, as part of the detested, for he is, indeed, a part of that which he detests. The error originates when one thinks he is to detest the exterior without detesting the interior. See my explanation of A1.
6. “Man” cannot replace “God” in the aphorism. Man is his own, can feel himself from within; he is, in the very least, able to conceive himself as “real” simply by feeling pain. God, on the other hand, is an interior matter that comes not from within, but is fed from without – God is like any other matter that is fed to man, like potato chips even. Man is not a fantasy, but is an actuality that exists simply because man feels that which he is, as opposed to feeling that which he desires – God, or hope itself. See how this relates to A20.
God is an exterior fantasy – which, to say the least – is not even as realistic as some of the inner fantasies one might have, for these other fantasies originate from within and are true to their conceiver alone; they are not universal fantasies. If God is to be applied to this situation, than God would be proven to be un-universal – in this case, he is worthless, for he would appear, like everything else, an opinion, a fantasy – something that comes and goes by man’s own fancy.
8. Some of these people hesitate talking to even the friendliest of faces. One must not be malicious or spiteful towards the believers, but observant without observing. If one is to detest the believers, one must – first – detest himself for being an unbeliever. The difference is simple: the believers do not detest themselves for believing - their belief, no matter how true, is left unquestioned; the self-detester, however, detests himself, and by that, he would be more truer than any believer. A question with an answer: the answer is wrong. Anything that settles is dead. The believer settles. The detester detests. Ignorance is infinite, to settle upon an answer is to be lacking and rejecting of what is truer.
9. The simple choosing of religion is an error, a proof of faithlessness. I shall explain.
You go, or have attended a kind of schooling, correct? I will trust that you have. So your answer is “yes.”
In order to realize your independence, to move on, to simply live your life, you must graduate from these schools, correct? I will trust your answer to be “yes,” also.
Upon graduating a certain type of school in, let’s say, the United States, you come out with the knowledge that “1+1=2,” and let us suppose that that holds a universal type of truth that humanity is willing to abide by.
Now, you move to Germany, attend school once again, learning “1+1” again for the simple desire of a different answer, not a 2, something maybe better, more unique, more breathtaking. You do not find it, however, you will remain in school in hope of making such a discovery.
Let us, now, take religion. People go attend their Churches in search of a God. Now, there are three types of people from there on: A) Those who will find God, B) Those who will change religions after having observed the Church and its teachings, and C) Those few who will become unbelievers.
Now, let us examine each group:
A) They found God, and so bless them. Let us suppose the Church is a kind of school that enlightens people. One, then, must graduate and move beyond the Church and its teachings, into a more open, more free kind of faith, correct? If one does so, it becomes a question of whether the Church presented him a beauty to see and so he saw it, or he did, in fact, find what is to be found. Let us examine both cases: If he had found what is intended to be founded, one, then, must be able to find it without the aid of any exteriorities, because such a grand belief must rest within, and is not acquired by the means of any one else but the self. The Church, then, becomes what? Ah! The Church becomes the artist that paints the painting for man to behold; mystified, he would believe. The conclusion is, those who find God in the Church have found nothing but saw what they are meant to see by the Church. As for those who elevate beyond the Church, the same argument applies, for they would not have needed the Church to realize the grand belief they would later uphold. Knowledge, dear Zadok001, is realized, not taught. If one is to know anything then he is to realize it, not given it.
B) They change religion after having observed a dislike to their current type of faith. Let us suppose that their faith is monotheistic. In this case, he who changes from one faith to another is simply looking at “1+1=2” in one place, and at “1+1=2” in another – the only difference being is an error in perception, a lack of detesting one’s self but merely the detesting of everyone else, that is to say, observing while making an observation – something I am against. In conclusion, he who changes faith and actually finds it is not faithful by any sense, because faith should hold universality, not individuality. If it is of individuality, then, the case negates itself: faith is good because it works and is profitable. See A7.
C) Those who are rendered unbelievers are as faithless as the believers. I had mentioned that “anything that settles is dead.” This applies just as justly to the unbelievers as to the believers. To draw a conclusion based on limited experience is lacking. To believe is to settle. To unbelieve is to settle. Both are dead. What is left? Perhaps that is the purpose of my inquiry, perhaps it is to detest all – continually - including the self, for the self is but a fragility that would adapt to anything and call it “righteous.” Righteousness, however, rests beyond adaptation, beyond individuality, that is if righteousness exists.
10. He who claims that God is internal, then, mustn’t complain of immorality, injustice, and hatred. If God is a reflection of man then it is a necessity that God is immoral, unjust, and hateful. That is to say, God is man and man is God. Yet, he who claims such thing still has an object of worship beyond himself, something exterior of him; why I must ask, if God is he and he is God?
11. These aphorisms are in no way to be viewed by the world; they are never to be taught – forgive me if I had implied otherwise. Zadok001, what I may say you might understand but still, you will not understand it. You seem to be quite of an accepting spirit, yet I must insist upon the impossibility of you understanding that which I feel, for you would not feel it, only hear or read of it. Should, by any chance, these feeble words strike a chord to your heart, they would strike a different note, a different melody, and you would have felt something that I had not. In order to understand one another, we must become one another in mind, heart, and every small cell, every facet, every detail – necessary or unnecessary. In that case, this aphorism explains itself quite well: socialization teaches errors, teaches to love one’s self, to be all that is to be; how feeble these teachings must appear in front of me, for they inspire patriotism, hatred, and the strict grasp of righteousness, as if one was truly righteous. It leaves no room for doubt, for detesting, for rejecting – yet there is much to be doubted and rejected. Again I must coward to my own weakness: “all that settles is dead.” The world desires settlements in many ways, and teaches it to every new tragedy that is given birth to; it teaches false devotions and passions and carriers and knowledge. In these settlements, man must devote himself inside a circle, passions reside within some walls, carriers induce settlement or the illusion thereof, and knowledge is circular – it is not knowledge of the universe, but knowledge of this here and that there, of cars, computers, mechanics, furniture, business. It is, to say, settled knowledge: dead knowledge that does evolve and advance, but only within a dead end.
12. My dear Zadok001, you misperceive me once again, but it is my fault in totality. I did not intend “buried” to be taken literarily but figuratively. I am simply saying that one is to not be existent in actuality, not even rest under existence within conformity, but be somewhere so degrading, so faithless even, so dead – it is to have no faith in one’s self, but be accompanied by a desire of this and that, of hope of so and so – where is the self? Hope is laziness, it makes man want of an exterior aid as opposed to learn to aid himself, to correct what he does not like.
14. The world’s problems cannot be solved, and that is not my intent, never was, and never will be. Problems are man’s best friend; they are undeniable. Religion has inspired more conflicts throughout history than any other institute. Man has learned his morals, of right and wrong – that is if right and wrong are truly right and wrong. Religion is a school. We are the children. It demands that we graduate! But no, we are still learning the same basic lessons, of this and that, of badness that is only subjective, of goodness that is only profitable. How bad is badness, and how good is goodness in this day of age? They seem neutral in cases, and even reversible in some areas, as in politics.
15. To say that a perfect God can create perfect imperfection is to say that perfect injustice can bring about perfect justice; that perfect hatred can bring upon perfect love; perfect perfection can bring perfect imperfection – let us examine: if it is in God’s power to conceive imperfection, why would such a God, then, demand through religion a sort of perfection, not just that, but claim to punish all those who do not meet the set standard? At that point, upon such insistence and threats by God, freewill becomes determination, for goals would be given to reach, limits would be set. Such a God negates himself. He gives freewill only to have one abide.
16. So to be faithful is to wish for happiness and hope for the best? Following your logic, you suggest that it follows to be religious if one is to find happiness, because why take a chance and bet against destiny? Is that faith: because it brings happiness? How of little value must it be worth, then, should it not make us perfectly happy. See A7.
17. You have simply restated my argument. The spiritualist, the religious, the believer – they have a strong grasp on this life, and why I must ask, if they might believe of an all-loving God? There is a certain doubt that rests within their hearts, a doubt that has grown rejected in favor of a desire, hope. See A11.
18. To the world, the imperfections of reality are different to each. Who is to say they are imperfections, if one disagrees with a certain “imperfect” idea and perceives it as “perfect?” It takes a second observation of politics, religions, and societies to observe the “imperfections” they perceive in each other, the subjectivity of it all. And besides, how is one to perceive perfection if there are no imperfections? How can you define “good” without knowing badness, friend without knowing the enemy? In a perfect world, imperfection must exist – yet it is rejected in hope of a better place that lacks imperfection. What is the value of perfection at that point?
20. I agree. Why not feel our desires? As noted in A1-A19, that a desire of feeling is taking place, not the feeling of desire. When you set your mind to seeing X you will see it, even if it is a Y. When you desire X, you will feel it, even if it is Y. When you
feel X, however, it is X that you have felt, not Y, and then you may go on and
desire of X as you want, for you know what X is. The feeling is as truthful as it can be, for one have had felt it.
Train: I would have never imagined one to be able to recreate these things into the comical nature that you have instilled in them. It is amusing, and interesting in many ways.
Dear Shiro: In discussing with Zadok001, I have observed this, an aphorism I should have included in the very beginning. It fairly answers your questionings:
-21-
Ignorance is infinite; anything that settles - dies. A questions that finds an answer, finds the wrong answer. To have a definate end is to have a dead end. Change is constant; answers are the inverse of change, and so they are inconsistant.
