On the Purity of Essence Society is filled with the distraught and unhappy. These people feel as such because their essence is impure. “How would one achieve ‘purity of essence’?” you say, “Surely not by drinking rainwater or distilled water to avoid fluoridation.” I respond, “Of course not, I’m no General Jack Ripper.” The true way to attain purity of essence is to live in one’s own world, oblivious to the real world. Though it may seem insane to attempt such a feat, I say, “Are not the insane those truly free of reality? Of the calumny of society? Of the drudgery of life? Are they not the truly happy?” I am certain now that this is the true way to happiness, and that you, my dear followers, are well prepared to receive the Word, the most sacred instructions of ascension. You may say, “What need is there for such happiness on earth? Is it not a trial? A test?” “A test for what?” I respond, “An afterlife?” There is no proof of such a thing and should therefore be deemed nonexistent. “What if it is proved?” you say. “How would you prove it, by dying?” I reply. What form of proof would that be? You may see eternal life in your death but I would only see the death your body, thus proving nothing. Only fools attempt to prove ideals in death which they cannot prove in life. Hence, one should not concern oneself with happiness in the afterlife, for there is no evidence of its existence, but to seek happiness in our most tangible of lives. “And how, ‘grand exalted teacher’, would we ‘feeble-minded’ people achieve the ‘enlightenment’ of which you speak?” you ask. And I answer as such, “Though I do not appreciate such a tone, I will show you the road to elevation for I hold no grudge to your slur.” “Faith” and “belief” must be abolished before true enlightenment can begin. “Why would one abolish faith and belief?” you say, “Are they not the essence of cognitive beings?” I reply, “Essence of cognitive beings! Do you not mean the essence of lies?” for faith and belief are exemplars of fallacy. Belief is solely the notion that unfounded ideas are true only because one “believes” them to be. No evidence can be given for the validity of arguments of “belief”, nor can they be proven; therefore one is well-advised to forego the practice of “believing”, and to actively partake in the art of reason. “How can you, great purveyor of knowledge, say such things? Beliefs are quite true for we hold them to be so,” said you. “Why would something be true simply because you hold it so? Perhaps you misunderstand my argument? Or maybe you misinterpret the definition of truth,” said I. Truth is not simply ordained, it is proven through experimentation and reason. Belief assumes its argument true regardless of proof, regardless of feasibility, and regardless of reason. Belief is inherently false, the epitome of fallacy. “And what of faith then?” say you, “Does faith not make all possible?” “Faith! Ha! How could the progeny of belief make all possible? How could something intrinsically false realize all?” say I. All that is possible is, in fact, possible; faith does not make it so. Also, faith does not make the impossible possible. “What, then, of miracles?” you say. I reply, “‘Miracles’, as you call them, are possible, that is why they happen. They are not impossibilities made possible, but the occurrence of an improbable event.” Faith has no bearing on the occurrence of an outcome. “What do you mean? My piety truly causes beneficial events to occur,” you say, “Take this for example, I was once on my tandem on a bridge that was over a drained canal. While riding I fell off, and because of my faith in the great benefactor of man, God, I fell into the water filled portion of the canal. If I had fallen anywhere else I would have surely perished.” “What malefaction!” I reply, “How dare you defile this work with that filth? And also with that word, ‘god’? Blasphemer! You blaspheme life. But I do not solely have harsh words for you. First, I will disprove your argument.” The events you mention are disproved by a simple word, chance. All events occur by chance. Your close encounter with death was only one possibility that was defined by literally hundreds, if not thousands, of variables. If you were going a little faster, or have fallen off at a different angle you would have perished (which I’d gladly accept over “parish”, but that is beside the point). Hell, you could have gotten even luckier and not fallen, all by chance. Anyway, if you hadn’t fallen into the water and had met you doom instead we wouldn’t be having this conversation. “But it is not enough to only disprove my argument, you must provide proof for yours!” you exclaim. I calmly reply, “You did not let me finish for I was nigh-close to sharing a fine exemplar of the lack of faith’s influence on events.” Take the example of the forty year old man who contracts lung cancer (and just so you know, this story is no fabrication. I knew this person). This man was good, good in the biblical sense mind you, for he was extremely pious. And how was he rewarded for his faith, he contracted lung cancer, and he didn’t even smoke mind you. And through his ordeal he remains pious and good, he prays, he asks for help, he believes that “god” will heal him. Sadly, his condition atrophies, but he still remains pious. And in piety he died. Was his “faith” not strong enough? Had his god forsaken him? Or maybe, regardless of the existence of a god, faith does not hold any sway on a conclusion. Verily, that must be the case. “Henceforth one wouldst be wise to rid oneself of the myths of ‘faith’ and ‘belief’,” thus I declare, and one can do nothing but assent. To further purify the life essence all social biases must be expunged. “How, sir, might I go about this task? Do I not live in a society? Hence, am I not subject to their biases? Must I not partake in them?” you say. I reply, “Those very questions I shall answer shortly and most thoroughly as possible, for I am well on my way to enlightenment and therefore tend to neglect the ability of a novice, such as you, to comprehend the subject matter. What I mean is to bear with me even though I may be unclear.” Humans do indeed live in societies, but to live outside them is the object of a pure essence. And yes, humans are indeed subject to societal biases, but no man has to partake in them. Hence one must become totally objective. All presuppositions such as the frailty of women, man’s superiority to animals, or procreation as the meaning of life must all be discarded. Any such conceptions should be constructed through reason, and not accepted simply because of their pervasiveness in society. Also, all wrote knowledge must be abandoned… “What? One should just disregard all knowledge. But, are not the knowledgeable truly wise? Do we not need wise men?” you interrupt. “Quite simply,” I reply, “the knowledgeable are not the truly wise. Wisdom is not derived from wrote knowledge, but from learned knowledge. They are distinguished in this way: Wrote knowledge is gained from that innate malefaction known as ‘education’, where as learned knowledge is derived from reason, and is not simply told to a person. To answer your other question, wise men are needed, but to be wise more than knowledge is necessary. The truly wise possess insight, which accompanies their knowledge. But now I have a question for you, what impetus makes you so callow as to interrupt me?” You remain silent, “…” Anyway, how would one seek to achieve such a feat as to become truly objective? One method, though extremely volatile, is tremendously easy; it is known as the use of state altering “tools”. The utility of these “tools” is so amazing because as few as one dose can result in the “forgetting” of all biases, and culminating with complete objectivity. However, this form of detachment has one major flaw, the inherent loss of one’s faculties. You say, “You propone the use of condition altering utensils AKA drugs but you have the nerve to call me callow.” “I do not propone the use of these “tools” but I cannot simply disregard them because, though they may be mordant, they have great utility. And why should I have to defend myself against your rebuke for it spawns from the social bias “drugs are bad”. And regardless of any bias, I only suggest them; I do not force them upon anyone for there are other ways to become objective,” I reply. The second method, questioning societal implications, is much safer, but also much longer of a process. To succeed with this practice one must question all aspects of social influence until those aspects completely collapse. Eventually, one will truly become objective, and at that point they will perceive all as it exists, not as civilization perceives it. And it is at this point that one must construct their views and acquire their knowledge. “Consequently, objectivity spawns all knowledge and insight, which together form the great virtue known as wisdom,” thus I declare, and one can do nothing but assent. One must isolate oneself from the lesser man to further proceed on the path to enlightenment. “Isolation?” you inquire, “How will that help us to reach enlightenment?” I reply, “Is not enlightenment freedom from this world?” “Yes,” you reply. “And is not the lesser man part of this realm?” Again you reply, “Yes.” Well then, one must free oneself from the lesser man, and the way to accomplish this is to isolate oneself from them.” Now, let me describe the lesser man for those who are uncertain of his character. These men, the lesser men, are those ignorant to the great gifts of life. They are the politicians, for they lie and steal and indulge in their carnal desires under the guise of justice. What false men they are. They are the priests, for they are the purveyors of man’s disease, religion. They are nihilists, every one of them. They say life has no meaning but to test us for the afterlife, but they tell untruths for there is no eternal life. They worship a deity whom they claim rules over man, but that is also a fallacy for god is dead – I know for I met the man who killed him. They are the Christians, for they made their god so weak as to be destroyed. And I know how they did it, with pity. The weakest, most effeminate act of pitying, yes, they do this. They claim to be good and pure, but they are always the good while their enemies, who think them evil, are considered always evil. They claim that they cannot lie, well, that would mean they do not understand the concept of truth. They claim to be protectors of the weak and upholders of the law, but they only defend the wealthy while upholding the laws that further their position. They are the optimists and the pessimists, for they live in one-sided worlds, which refuse to acknowledge the each other. They are the stoics, for they think to avoid all stimulus equally is a virtue. They are the abstinent, for they forsake the natural impetus to succeed in life. They are the meek, they are those who submit, they are those who abandon will, they the lesser. All who spurn enlightenment are the lesser men and must be excised. “Thank you, ‘great soothsayer,’ for your delightful description, but how, may I inquire, would one achieve such a daunting task?” you ask. “It is not my task to disclose a procedure to you,” I respond, “but out of my good will, ingenuous pupil, I will teach you.” The most facile way to isolate oneself from the lesser is to seek hermitage in the upper peaks of some foreign land. However, a life of such stringent isolation may be extremely difficult for the more gregarious of us, who should seek a much simpler form to further themselves from their boorish brethren. Introversion is the way these needy folk must pursue to remove themselves from the lesser man. Slowly, they must cease interaction with their uneducated fellows and begin the creation of their own world. Yes, a world in which they live oblivious to the unintelligible mass, where they are their own master, free of society and its unenlightened views. “Hence, one must separate oneself from the lesser man and reside in his own world, free of all societal impositions,” thus I declare, and one can do nothing but assent. Living in one’s own world is not a lone act and must be accompanied by another entity. “What exactly is that entity?” you query. I answer, “That entity, my disciple, is order. Order, or law, is necessary for all peoples in all worlds, even ones who live in their own plane.” “But are not such laws oppressive?” you question. “Statutes are only oppressive when they are created by one and imposed on another. No, these laws will not be dictated to self inhabitants, who are indeed rulers in their land, for each ruler must, in fact, generate their own laws and obey them,” I answer. “But, why would one have to obey his law if he is ruler?” you question. To that I answer, “Is not a true ruler one who governs all justly making himself subject to his own law?” “Yes, but…” “And is one that is so devoted as to subject oneself to one’s law much greater than those who do not?” “Verily so, but…” “Also, is not the leader who holds himself accountable for not only his men but also himself great?” “That is true, but that does not absolve the earlier argument in which statutes oppress.” “How can you utter such blasphemy?” I reply, “I assume that to you think one is capable of oppressing oneself.” “Indeed I do, for is that not what you state? Do you not say that one must originate their own law and then obey it? Is not the submission to law oppression?” “Calm now, dear friend, you misunderstand. Submission to law is oppressive, or rather; forced submission to law is oppressive. You see, when one chooses of their own will to submit then they are not being oppressed. Of course, this does not include the billions of earth’s denizens whom are brainwashed by religion into thinking that they accept the holy law. They are but pawns for the mighty and mendacious pastors who wish to solely control a flock. Unfortunate bastards.” “Well then, you have shown that law has is no oppressor for the enlightened, but what good is it? What is its purpose?” “‘Its purpose,’ you say. Can you actually be so oblivious to it? Well, I must assume so since you did ask it, therefore I will answer you. The function is no more than direction” “Direction? Direction for what?” “Direction for your will, you imbecile. Did you not know that one’s own law represents one’s will? Yes, the will of any man who lives above other men in his own world becomes his canons. All his deepest desires, morals and virtues are accurately reflected in his law. No aspect goes untouched as his very definitions of ‘right and wrong’ and ‘good and evil’ are demonstrated by his statutes. Then they are further exemplified through his strict correspondence with his law. He does all that he thinks is good and just, while looking with disdain at those which he thinks reprehensible.” “But what if the law defines inherently evil things such as murder or rape as good? Does he simply follow his will? Or does he think of the good of others?” “He should follow his will, of course, for if the well-being of others were important to him he would not have considered ‘inherently evil’ acts as good.” “But would he not feel bad for committing such acts? Does an enlightened one have no conscience?” “Ha! Feel bad for others. Only the weak and the hypocrites possess that horrid trait. Why would one feel pity for another, especially if one thinks the malfeasance rendered upon them is to be a virtue? Only fools and those accursed Christians (which is redundant for Christians are undoubtedly fools) opt to pity, even if only to look upon themselves in a better light. And as for the conscience, no enlightened man would ever be ‘blessed’ with one, nor would they imagine such an illusory attribute to exist. Therefore, those who seek purity must design their own laws that thoroughly reflect their will for will is the essence of one’s existence,” thus I declare, and one can do nothing but assent. “It seems to me, my beloved apostle, that you are growing quite restless, but the final step has arrived, which I am certain will ease your anguish as well as extinguish your distrust.” “O yes ‘grand exalted master,’ please share with me your final insight,” you quip. “Ah, I see you’ve taken that tone once again, but my message will not be deterred, I will go on in spite of it.” “Well then, what is it? What is the final step?” “It is the creation of one’s own deity.” “A god? We are to create a god? Was it not you who said that there was no God? That god was dead? And that you know the one who killed him?” “Yes.” “And was it not you who said that faith and belief must be abolished?” “Yes.” “Then how can you say that we must create our own deity? We would be no better than the Jews or the Christians or any other spiritualistic aberration. So how can you justify this?” “Please, before you question listen carefully, my explanation will clarify everything.” “Well then, proceed.” “The deity one must create to achieve purity is no god in which one believes in, or has to have faith in for unlike the other, traditional gods this deity is tangible.” “Tangible? We will worship idols then?” “No, no, not idols, not the nonliving but the live.” “Ah, I see now. We shall worship living things. Yes, nature is full of prospective gods. Mine will be the…” “Ho now, let us not make the error of mistaking the ass for a god. Once again, your misinterpretation is rather profound. Do you not find it foolish to worship an ass as a god? What about a pig? Or a goat? Surely it seems odd to you, my thoughtless knave, that one would worship livestock? Indeed it does to me for my meaning was quite different. The notion I obtained was to create one’s deity from oneself.” “You mean to say that the enlightened must regard themselves as gods? How blasphemous! Now I know that you are here to corrupt. O corrupter, have you thrown your lot in with Lucifer?” “Hold, you insolent wretch! How would I be able to throw my lot in with Satan if I do not recognize his existence? And how dare you call me a corrupter whilst defending those who have corrupted you? How quick you are to call names and pass judgment - just like a Christian. Why do you not hear me before my burning at the stake?” “Fine then, go on.” “The Christians say that body and soul (if such an entity exists) are connected, and essentially they are correct. However, they are mistaken in stating that the body is merely an extension of the soul, for without the body there is no soul. There is no god and there is no spirit world, no heaven and no hell, so without the body the cognitive entity the Christians call the soul dissipates and disappears. Without a body there is no soul. Therefore, the body is the creator of the soul, and what do we call the creator? God. Yes, those that are truly enlightened recognize that they are gods, gods among the lesser.” “O such heinous folly! How now, corruptor, will you persuade for your rhetoric has no effect on the pious.” “The pious, eh? Well, then what if I were to say that the only true Christian, yes, the one who died on the cross, proclaimed my very message (or is it that I proclaim his) for he did not die to save you from anything but your misery and pathetic self-pity. Did he not say that the Kingdom of God is within us and all around us? But we know that there is no God and no Kingdom, therefore we must be gods for we rule in our own worlds that exist around us and rule our souls which are within us. Yes, we are gods. And as gods are truly free of all societal influences for our essence is pure,” thus I declare, and one can do nothing but assent. “Now, disciple, I trust you feel an imminent ascension toward enlightenment and purity of essence, if not I am afraid this discussion was a wasted expenditure of energy.” “No, my lord, I have learned much from your sage speech and indeed feel closer to enlightenment.” “I see your progress is not as great as you think for you now call me ‘lord’ and refrain from further questioning my advice. With a few eloquent words I have nullified the fires of your inquiry so much as to place you into servitude under me. How weak and pathetic you are! Go now, whelp, and find yourself. Service under my wing will be no help to you; enlightenment is something one must achieve alone,” thus I declare, and one can do nothing but assent. |