Rabbit or Duck? Seeing the world differently…

Rabbit-Duck Illusion

 A rabbit or a duck? You can see it as either, but never as both. What changes when you see it as rabbit as opposed to when you see it as duck? The lines that form it remain the same, and yet something changes. Everything remains the same, and yet everything becomes radically different. What if you could look at the world in the same way you look at the rabbit-duck picture? What if, just by looking, the whole world can change? What if right this moment you could put an end to misery just by the mere act of looking at it?

On Madness

Madness is the state when external circumstances completely over-power a man’s essence (his will-to-power) and turn it against himself. Basically madness is the equivalent of mental death associated with severe physical malfunctioning which leads to physical death without external help. I define mental illness as different than madness, since mental illness can be resolved/improved upon. Mental illness is when external circumstances partially over-power man’s essence (will-to-power) and thereby greatly limit his ability to act in order to increase his power. Mental illness is to a large extent reversible, while madness is the sickness-unto-death. Mental illness can, however, lead to madness if left untreated for prolonged periods of time. Madness is not simply the inability to act towards one’s self-preservation, that would qualify as an extreme state of mental illness. It is the uncontrolable ability to act for the destruction of one’s self. Madness (or insanity) is the complete malfunctioning of self-corrective consciousness whereby the latter becomes self-destructive consciousness. Animals cannot turn insane, since they do not possess a self-corrective (reflective) consciousness as human beings do. They cannot think about their thoughts, they simply have thoughts (and by thoughts I am reffering primarily to sensations here). 

Open Challenge: Prove Certain/Justified Knowledge of Axioms

OPEN CHALLENGE: Prove that knowledge of axioms can be certain and justified!

This question becomes truly fundamental, not only to metaphysics, but to all sciences qua studies/accumulation of knowledge. I will credit Kant for writing on this topic in great detail, but his solution being not entirely satisfactory. He says that knowledge of axioms is possible by means of a “faculty” of some magical “intuition” that is presupposed by experience. This really is the example of a non-explanation par excellence. It is the same as me telling you that the leaf of a tree is green by means of a “green” faculty which it possess, which of course is presupposed to any experience of green. No “green” faculty, no green. Then let me develop this further… not only the leaf has the green faculty, but many other objects as well! Nonsense!! Utter nonsense. And yet Kant brilliantly identified that without knowledge of axioms we have no knowledge at all, just like without a foundation we have no house. Kant, in a sign of extreme greatness and courage identified the crux of the matter: if we do not have knowledge of the axioms from which we deductively build up our theories of empirical reality, then we really have no certain, universal knowledge, we are as Socrates would put it ignorant, and destined to remain so. The only thing we may know is our direct reality, but nothing else. The pursuit of knowledge is thus in vain, indeed a delusion, that man has pursued ever since he ate out of that wretched Tree of Knowledge, a pursuit leading nowhere but to man’s own dissolution, an impossible mission that man should renounce if he is to remain intelligent. But yet how can man renounce it? No he can’t, for man thirsts for knowledge, knowledge is the ultimate good! It looks like this: man is destined to a tragic life: he thirsts for knowledge by his very nature, and yet can have none. Man’s nature in opposition to the world. Absurd! It is just like the horse, who is made to move by hanging a carrot in front of his nose, letting him always smell it, and yet never giving it to him… so too man is moved after knowledge. He feels knowledge right there in front of him… just one more step and he will reach it. And then he moves and he still hasn’t reached it. One more step, after so much effort he can’t give up no? It’s just one step ahead afterall… he takes the step, and yet still, now another step required… How can man be at peace? Camus very well took the myth of Sisyphus and looked at it as the condition of man, except that he missed something. Something devastatingly important. Sisyphus is happy precisely because he has realised the treachery of the gods, and even if by his nature he is forced to move the boulder up, only for it to come down again, he knows that his whole project is futile, that the gods are playing with him, and he accepts this futility as the truth, and is thus paradoxically freed. So likewise, if man is to be happy like Sisyphus, man must realise the futility of pursuing knowledge, that he will never have any knowledge, and yet man cannot give up the quest, he must continue searching for it, and yet be keenly aware that he will never gain it. Thus he fulfils his nature’s requirements, and rises above it by understanding it. As Pascal beautifully put it:

“Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this.
All our dignity then, consists in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endeavour then, to think well; this is the principle of morality.” -Pensees

So first things first:

1. Science speaks against this “impossibility” of knowledge, and by its sheer pragmatic success it speaks with authority. Is its talk a further delusion, or is it a sign that there is a justified, certain way to come to knowledge of axioms?
2. If yes, then what is this justified, certain way, and more importantly, why is it justified and certain and how do we know that it is so?
3. If no, then absurdism is the only reality. We are stuck with a nature which cannot be fulfilled by the world we live in, and using this knowledge we must elevate ourselves and conquer our fate as it were!

(By the way, Popper is not a solution. His falsificationism never assures certain knowledge, so his falsificationism is a strategy to be adopted once we have accepted (3) above that we can never have certain knowledge).

On the question of Truth and Morality

How do I know the Truth? I intuit it, I feel it. I look for its beauty and its harmony and its resonance. I don’t care one tiny bit for the logic or the proof. The logic and the proof comes after. First you must know your destination in order to know how to get to it. The search for truth is in its essence subjective and biased, for one does not search for the truth objectively, but rather full of passion. Whosoever denies this is a liar and a hypocrite. For why does he search for the truth in the first place if he is not also interested in it?

I know beforehand what the truth is, and when I sit down, I sit down merely to prove that this is the case. But I know that which I want to prove already, before the proof even begins. The truth is the ultimate good in itself. The contemplation of the truth is the ultimate happiness. Hence the search for truth is motivated by a search for goodness, a search for peace of mind, for unshakable happiness. Whosoever does not see this is ultimately a hypocrite deceiving himself. The one who claims the truth to be objective is the greatest hypocrite. Such a man should go become a preacher, for in truth he does not want the truth, but rather he wants to hold a doctrine with which to impress other men, with which to dominate their thinking and behaviour. He wants to control them, that’s what he wants. POWER! And why does he want power? Because he is afraid, he is afraid of freedom, of the possibility that others may do something to him that he doesn’t like. So he must control their behaviour through morality, because what other means does he have in modern society? Force can’t be used, so yes, that’s it, morality is to be used. Morality is to be the weapon to enslave them, to keep them under control, to keep them in check, just like a herd of sheep. And how shall morality control them? Obviously, if they were real people, courageous people, true lions, and not weaklings, no morality could control them. But for weak people morality shall control them like this: they shall be forced to swing between two extremes. Hope and fear. Just like a pendulum swinging from one side to the other. When one is hopeful, he is already gaining momentum to go towards fear just like when the pendulum is going towards the right it is already gaining momentum to go towards the left. When one is fearful he must gain momentum to go towards hope. That is the principle of organised religion. So long as his mind swings he shall never realise it for he shall have no clarity of mind with which to look.

And what shall we, those a bit stronger do? We shall be the ones who affirm morality the most! Yes, we shall scream it loud and clear in all marketplaces, in all churches, on all TV channels. We shall talk about rewards and punishments! We shall control the behaviour of our sheep and we shall do as we please with them. And what about ourselves? Should the makers of the law obey the law? Absolutely we shall say, the law is for everyone! But that doesn’t matter for we shall still do as we please! Whenever our whims change, the law will change. We are the law in truth, but oh, don’t say this to anyone. In fact, let’s not even admit it! Yes I remember, yes that’s right! The law is supreme, the law is even above us, above its makers. No no, we are not its makers, indeed, yes, we are merely the ones who have discovered it! Its maker is God!! Yes, that is it, we must obey God, God is the law! That’s it, we must deceive ourselves as well, for that is the safest way! Don’t worry my friend, soon we shall also forget the deception and then after we have even decieved ourselves, who shall find the deception? When not even us, the ones who have orchestrated it know about it, who shall know? Nobody… that’s it…

The strongest man however knows himself. He cannot live under delusion. And he is not afraid. How can the truly strong be afraid? Impossible. Fear is for those weaker than him. He doesn’t need to control anyone, not even himself. He is at ease with whatever happens. Out of compassion he looks at both the strong man and at the weak man and cries for them. They are both disillusioned, neither knows the truth… Such a man is a liberated man, he is the only one who has truly lived.

On the Natures of Man

Note: This has been written before “On Knowledge, Ignorance, Thought, Awareness and Sin”

Much has been written on this subject. Man finds himself bewildered at the depth that he finds within himself. But to witness man in his fullness is something very few have had the patience to do. For man doesn’t only have one nature, he has two natures. And everyone who does not take this into account cannot render a proper picture of man; they will form a picture that is in the end disillusioned for it doesn’t take the whole truth in account. It is useful to look at most interpretations of man and conclude that they are one of two kinds: either they see man as entirely vile, barbaric, and animalistic in his heart with a mask covering this, or they see man as good and divine, but ignorant of this nature. To the former we can side many ideologies, such as Machiaveli’s, Freud’s, Ayn Rand’s and more. To the latter in the same way we find many ideologies: buddhism, taoism, islam, hinduism to name a few. These ideologies cannot be wrong entirely… after all they were developed by thinking people who clearly saw something. The only possibility is that they didn’t see the entire whole, but only a part of it, and each seeing a different part developed a different philosophy. The fact of the matter though remains that man has two natures: man has both an evil nature which inclines him to be selfish, to be animalistic, to be uncaring; but he also has good nature which tells him when he does evil that that which he is doing is evil, which tells him to be caring, which tells him to be loving. That is why through history we have examples of both: corrupt men who have done evil and harmed others through their tyranny and oppression, as well as benevolent people, who have sacrificed themselves for others in altruistic manners. This double nature of man makes him a contradiction!

The main question thus becomes the following: what is the origin of both of these natures? Do they both come from within man? Or do they both come from the outside? For clearly before one can engage in a discussion of ethics, one must first understand man’s contradictory natures and their origins. The interesting feature is that evil men also recognise good when they see it. A tyrant will one moment be watching Romeo and Juliet and crying at the purity of their love, and the next moment he will be ordering thousands to be slaughtered. How can such a contradiction be reconciled? Clearly the man recognises love when he sees it, but the moment he no longer sees it, he no longer remembers it; he has forgotten it. And his forgetfulness allows him to do his evil acts without any reticence. So therefore we can conclude that this man has within him an original nature; a nature which is good and thus recognises the good when it sees it; and then he also has a different nature, a willed nature, which obscures this original nature thus rendering man ignorant of it, thus making him once again forget it. This willed nature is the cause of his sinfulness. This is his sinful nature!

Socrates stated that ignorance is sin. But he has never taken into account the possibility that one may know the right thing and yet may still do evil. How is this possible one may ask? How can one know that what one does is evil, and yet still go ahead to do it? Because one’s actions are controlled by one’s will, and the will may obscure his knowledge so as to render him capable of evil. Thus it is true that ignorance is sin, but there is a deeper truth; namely that ignorance of ignorance is sin. For one knows and yet does not know. That is the supreme irony; that one may know good and yet still not know it, for if he truly knew it he wouldn’t do evil. The man who five minutes ago was moved to tears at the love of Jesus Christ is now, only five minutes later, beating his wife! Oh the irony! He knows love and yet does not know it! He knows it in that he can recognise it… re-cognise. That means that he has forgotten it for how can someone re-cognise something when seeing it if he hadn’t already known it before? Surely he must have known it before, that is why he recognises it again when he sees it. That is why we say he knows it through his original nature which is good, and thus recognises the good. And here lies the rub… For he is faced with it and thus recognises it, but his will, his second nature, being evil, immediately moves to obscure his knowledge, and make him forget once again what he has just remembered; and so he very easily moves to beat his wife, as if he had never known love. In this his will makes him ignorant of his own ignorance of love, and this is sin. What characterises man is thus not his original nature which immediately remembers its divine origin but his rebellious will, which chooses despite this remembrance to once again forget about it and go forth doing what it wants. Thus Truth knocks on man’s door from the outside and man, in his vileness, hears the knock and recognises who it is. Thus the servant knows that it is the master knocking at the door. And yet he is playing loud music in the house, he is dancing, he is covering his ears, so that he may forget that the master is knocking so as to have reason not to open. Has man thus not willed to forget about the real Master so that he can set himself master of the house? For how could man ever be master of the house if he knows that he is not the master, and another is? I tell you… Man sees and recognises the Truth, but because the Truth is not himself, he must deny it with the entire vehemence of his will; and instead man chooses himself, the untruth, and attempts to make the untruth into truth. An impossible mission. Ignorance of ignorance is sin, thus making it a willed act o!f choosing not to know, not merely a lack of knowledge which is to be understood as sin!

And this is the supremacy of the Christian religion over all other belief systems in that it pinpoints man’s natures exactly as they are. It talks about man’s original nature, which was created good by God, and about man’s sinful nature, which he acquired through his own will, and which obscures his original nature, thus hiding from him his own knowledge of that which is good, thus making him ignorant. Man makes himself ignorant through his own will; thus we say he is ignorant of his own ignorance and that is his sin, which comes out of his will. And here lies the requirement for revelation from God. For how can man become aware that he has obscured his own knowledge if this is not to be revealed unto him? How can man become aware that he wills to be ignorant of his own ignorance if not through a revelation from the divine? The Cross reveals to man his own misery, his own sin, and at the same time it reveals to him God’s nature, and God’s supreme love. Through the Cross man sees himself before God for the very first time in history. This is something extraordinary when one understand the full significance of it. Through the Cross man for the first time remembers God and sees himself as he truly is; created with a good original nature which he has obscured from himself through his own wilful sinning. Thus Jesus Christ is the salvation of all, and man may only return to God through Jesus Christ, for it is Jesus Christ who reveals unto man both God and his own willed sinful nature. There is nothing more dramatically different between Christianity and the other religions except the Cross! Therein lies the rub, and therein lies the scandal! For the Cross is a scandal unto all others, for it reveals unto man that his sinful nature comes out of his own will and obscures his original, good nature. It reveals unto man that he is a sinner before God, and he hears God’s knock at the door and willingly refuses to open, pretending and deluding himself that he does not hear. But God in his supreme love for man is patient; God waits. But one day God will smash the door and enter in all glory upon the sinner who attempts to disillusion himself, saying that there is no God. And in entering God will shatter the sinner’s disillusion and make his torment unimaginable. For now the sinner will see God, and still deny him. And that will be hell; for through his unreasonable denial the sinner will not be able to tolerate the presence of God. The sinner hates God for through his will he has been trying to deny that he hears God’s voice, because he didn’t want to hear it, but now he will no longer be able to deny, and h!e will come face to face with the fact that he does not want to be with God, which will be his hell!

It is this the risk of love: Christ warned man not to be offended in him. For if man will be offended in Christ, then he will be offended by his love! And being offended by his love man will feel eternally tormented. However, this risk must be taken so that love’s glory may shine above everything else. For if man will not be offended in His love, than man will have eternal, never-ending joy. But if he will be offended, then it will be as if he is burning in everlasting fire! For man will not be able to deny God’s love in eternity. And thus man confines himself to hell; it’s not God sending him there. That is why hell is the result of a wilful, fully transparent rejection of God.

On Knowledge, Ignorance, Thought, Awareness and Sin

All knowledge is the result of thought and all thought begins with sense experience. A man who has never had any sense experience is effectively a dead man, for there will be absolutely no thought in his mind, and thus nothing that could distinguish such a man from one who simply does not exist. Knowledge is thus self-aware life, while ignorance is unself-aware life. But suppose a man has had sense experiences and is suddenly deprived of them completely, would it be possible for him, now having no senses, to have thoughts in his mind? It appears that it is possible, because from careful observation of ourselves we can note that our ideas no longer reflect the sense impressions from which they were first born. So then, even after being deprived of all physical sensations, man will still hold a sense: thought. It is very much unlike the physical senses, however it is clear that it only emerges from the physical for without there ever being any physical sense there can be no thought in the first place. Thought is thus a sense construction built from our physical senses which becomes independent of them and returns to act as a prism lying somewhere between our awareness and physical senses, such that we become aware of our sense experience only through the prism of thought and not directly as we were aware at first. In this manner thought ceases to be a sense like all the others, and instead becomes their master. 

Before thought enters into play, awareness is aware of itself directly through sense experience. There is no sense experience without awareness and no self-awareness without sense experience. Thought is initially exactly the same as physical senses… it is in fact an additional sense. One experiences thought just as one experiences the warm hand of one’s beloved. But soon after the emergence of this thought something happens. Suddenly one experiences this thought no longer as a sense of which one is aware, but rather as that which is aware of sense experience directly. One ends up seeing thought as being equivalent with one’s awareness. This thought develops itself into a thought pattern. This thought pattern is seen as controlling the other senses, as being effectively in charge of them. Thus one ceases to be aware of ones awareness, and instead knows only ones thoughts as they relate to the rest of physical sense experience. But suppose such a man could eliminate all physical sense experience from the mind, such that the only sense left in the mind would be thought. What would happen? Such a person would directly see the awareness behind one’s thoughts, and for such a one, thought would re-become the equivalent of all the other senses: a mirror for one’s own awareness.

What leads to this misidentification of awareness and thought? The misidentification happens because thought is different from the other senses in that it emerges directly from them. One becomes aware of his own awareness and his sensations at first. These sensations start developing into thought patterns and one becomes aware of these thought patterns. These thought patterns, having emerged concomitantly with the sensations but not from direct contact with reality, but rather from contact with the sensations is seen immediately to be independent from the sensations. This independence confers thought a seeming “advantage” from sense impressions. Thought starts affecting sense experiences and giving them a different flavour. Awareness is thus suddenly challenged. Will it believe direct sense experience or will it believe sense experience through the lenses of thought? Clearly we see that the choice is always to believe sense experience through the lenses of thought. But why is this choice made? Because thought confers an advantage, it is an additional sense allowing one to better navigate through reality. At first one is aware of both thought and sense impressions. But the more one gets in the habit of seeing reality through the lenses of thought, and one will get into this habit because it is more advantageous, the more one becomes unable to see reality directly. Navigating reality through thought is almost entirely necessary, such as one cannot live unless one navigates reality in such a manner. But because of this necessity the habit of seeing reality through the lenses of thought will be so well formed that one will forget that one is also able to see reality directly. And worse, one will forget that one is seeing reality through lenses and instead will believe he is seeing reality directly.

Something else is to be noted. Awareness cannot be aware of itself except through something else. Awareness always exists, everywhere. However, it is only when there is a disturbance, sense experience, that it can possibly become aware of itself. The story of the Garden of Eden becomes extremely meaningful at this junction. “In the beginning was the Word” we are told. This means that in the beginning there was complete understanding, everything was seen clearly. Before the beginning, there was Silence. The Word shattered the silence. This is in effect the act of creation. One moment everything was silent, then suddenly one is born and this silence is shattered by a sea of sense experience. The Word is the beginning, and we know that the beginning was good. One was aware of ones own awareness through sense experience. Ones own awareness is ones very soul, the life which was breathed into man by God. So God is the source of all awareness. God gave man one rule not to eat out of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is not really significant what the rule was, but God had to give a rule because otherwise man would never be in the image of God and have freedom. For there can only be freedom if there are also rules. If we are to think and do so intelligently we must conclude that Adam had already sinned before he ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because he had already decided in his heart to break God’s commandment.

It’s not the gaining of Knowledge of Good and Evil that was sin, but his breaking of God’s commandment. And of course in breaking God’s commandment Adam had to also turn away from God. Why did Adam do this? Because the thought, which is represented by the serpent, occurred to him, that he can be his own God. Why did this happen? This happened because as Adam navigated through reality, he saw that it was easier to do so through the lenses of thinking rather than through direct awareness. So he formed the habit of seeing through his thoughts rather than through direct awareness. This was not bad in itself. However, what was bad was the moment when he got so into this habit that he had completely forgotten that he could see through his own awareness. This forgetfulness is the result of his choice. He trusted himself (reality through his thought) more than he trusted God (his direct awareness). This is the moment pride started to grow into him. He became ignorant of his own awareness and thus of his connection to this source of awareness, God. This ignorance was born from Adam’s search for knowledge, that is why it was called the Tree of Knowledge. But it wasn’t just his search of knowledge, it was also his choice. One’s choice of knowledge can lead to ignorance. When one forgets that his thinking is merely another sense, and instead gives complete mastery over to his thinking due to his habit of doing this over and over again to gain more knowledge, one effectively loses all knowledge, God, and himself. This is the supreme irony. Thus Adam forgets God, and runs away from the Garden of Eden. He hides from God.

Everyone of us goes through the same journey Adam went through. Everyone of us is born good. Everyone is born with an awareness of their own awareness, sense experience and thought. Everyone notices that looking at reality through the lenses of thought instead of directly leads to knowledge. So one gets in the habit of looking at reality through these lenses, until one completely forgets that he is looking through any lenses. One has created an idol, one has broken God’s first commandment. His idol is his own thought, to which he gave supremacy over the original, divine awareness. At this point one confuses one’s thought with one’s awareness. Thus he has forgotten God. Through his life man keeps going farther and farther from God, farther and farther into ignorance because of this habit which he has formed. Sin is a habit. St. Paul stroke right at the heart of the matter when he said that he knows what is good, and yet still fails to do it. Sin is the habit of mistaking thought to be the same as awareness; the habit of elevating thought to a position higher than that of the other senses. Thus one sees reality through some lenses instead of directly, and while this can be beneficent so long as one remembers that they are lenses, it is deadly if one forgets that they are lenses. As such man has condemned himself to hell, which is life apart from God, apart from his own awareness. At this point man needs God, because without God to remind him, who could tell him that he is deceiving himself? For if one is deceived by outward circumstances one can still become aware of the falsity of these circumstances and correct himself. But if one is deceived by himself, then one has no hope left within himself! God must act to excite man’s awareness, so that he may gain a glimpse of it, that he may start on the path back to God. Otherwise man has no hope…

Above we have unified the perspective of the Abrahamic faiths and have shown the meaning that they hold for each individual person. Now it is time to look towards the East. We see in Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism the following idea: that man lives in illusion, that he is broken off from his original reality. Why does man live in illusion? Who has created this illusion? He himself has created it and it is the result of his ignorance. But he wasn’t born ignorant, he has made himself ignorant by forgetting the knowledge he originally had. And he has forgotten it because he has chosen to forget it. This is the decisive missing piece of information that the Abrahamic faiths bring. Once this choice was made, man needs help from the outside because without external help he has no hope left within himself. But yet Buddha said that no one except man himself can save himself. This is true, once man has gained a glimpse of his ignorance. If man remains ignorant of his own ignorance, thereby thinking his ignorance is knowledge, then he has no hope, then he cannot turn and go back to God because he is not even aware that he needs to turn. It is just like man is sitting inside the house, and covering his ears, such that if the Master knocks he will not hear, and not being aware that he is covering his ears! Such a man needs to be told that he is covering his ears, that there may be a spark of awareness in him, that he may perceive his ignorance of his own ignorance such that he may be able to turn back, hear the Master’s knock, and open the door. In essence the Eastern and Western traditions are saying exactly the same thing. The Western tradition talks of man having a good nature, and then out of choice becoming evil. The Eastern tradition talks of man having a good nature but forgetting about it, hence becoming evil. They are in essence saying the same thing. They are telling different steps of the same process. It is true that man made a choice. It is also true that because of this choice he has forgotten he has even made a choice. It is also true that he has made his choice out of ignorance. It is also true that this ignorance was due to forgetfulness. It is also true that this forgetfulness was made out of his own choice.

Putting everything back together, one can trace the following journey that is common to all men: we are born when the innate awareness become aware of itself as a result of sense experience and thought. Thought is another sense, but a sense born from the others. Thought develops from sense experience and becomes independent of it. It becomes a complex entity of its own, a thought pattern. Looking at reality through this thought pattern enables us to better navigate it. We thus choose to look at reality through this thought pattern. Because we choose to look at reality in this manner more and more we develop a habit. Sooner or later we become unaware that we are looking at reality through a prism rather than directly. Here we have committed the original sin. Then we go down and down a path that leads farther and farther from reality until we can no longer find our way back. Suddenly someone awakens us from the ignorance of our own ignorance. Then we struggle mightily to turn back towards God, to see reality directly, not through our thinking. Once we succeed we have returned to God, and we can clearly see our connection to the infinite through our own awareness, which is itself emanating from a higher awareness. Death deprives us of sense experience and puts an end to thought. However, our awareness remains, although in a state where it is not directly aware of itself anymore. It has returned within the larger field of awareness, and although it is no longer aware of itself it has maintained its individuality.

A Beautiful Dream…

I had a dream… I dreamt that I was standing in the audience of a court room… to be judged was a young, very beautiful woman, who despite all that was given to her had wasted everything in drinks, prostitution, and murdering her own child… The Judge read slowly through everything she had done, how she had broken the law… He read and his words fell like a sword upon her… she was going to be sentenced to death after being mocked by everyone. The people in the audience got outraged at her crimes as they were being read out, and started throwing stones at her, spitting on her, cursing her… Laying on the floor, more helpless than the worst, most shameful animal… Tears mixed with her blood, she was gasping for another breath of air… More and more stones flying at her, the terror, the horror! Laughter was heard in the audience as all laughed and mocked her… Even those who had slept with her, who once claimed they loved her, were all now standing tall, laughing at her. As she was lying on the floor, probably thinking that this is it… this is her end, this is what she deserves. She had cheated on her husband, fornicated with other married men, mistreated and killed her own son, wasted her family’s fortune on drinking…

As I lay watching this horror scene suddenly One stood up and spoke: “NO!”… The people were in shock, and all the stones stopped dead on the floor. Suddenly there was silence in the court room… The man who had got up was known to have lived a pure life… He approached her, knelt down to her, her tears and blood falling on his feet. He put out his hand towards her, and she recognised the hand… it was the hand of her husband… it was the hand of the man whom she had abandoned, it was the hand of the man whose wealth she had squandered, it was the man whose son she had killed, it was the hand of the man whom she had mocked by sleeping with so many other men… He looked at everyone and at the Judge and he said: “Let her be free! Kill me in her place! Let her GO!!!! Throw your stones at me, let me take over her wrongdoings!”… “Are you certain?” asked the Judge in a trembling voice… The man looked the Judge in the eye and said: “I’ve never been more certain in my entire life! Let her go!”…

The Judge closed the Book, took out a gun and pointed it at the man… “You have anything left to say?”… “Yes…”. The man took the hand of his wife and looked her in the eye… she was crying, her whole being convulsing to take another breath… “I love you dear… Looking at you there, everyone in this stupid audience sees a ragged whore, a dirty woman who deserves nothing but death… When I look at you, I see the same thing… but I still love you…”. “No!” said the woman with the last of her efforts… “kill me I deserve to die, I have done every wrong thing possible under the heaven… I don’t deserve to live!! I don’t deserve your love!!!”… “You may deserve to die, but I love you and I want to die for you! I want you to be free and have life, and have it in abundance!”… Those men who were laughing a while ago, started laughing again, and spit her husband in the face. “We have slept with your wife you fool, you idiot! We have mocked you and humiliated you!” A stone flew in his face, and blood started running down, trickling down on his forehead… He said nothing but smiled at them who were cursing him and mocking him… as the Judge looked at the scene, his hand trembling on the gun he asked in a shrieking voice: “Are you sure son?!??!” “Yes!” answered the man… “Kill me and let her go!” The laughter of the audience was suddenly broken as the finger of the Judge snapped and the bullet flew through the head of the Man. It was finished and all was now silent… He fell next to his wife on the ground, still holding her hand… She looked at his face, as blood was running down, his eyes turning completely red… She looked at his wrecked face and she saw it… Here lay the only man who had ever loved her, the only one who came running after her even after she had betrayed him, the only one who gave his life so that she may live… And he died loving her, and being happy to die for her! The smile on his dead face testified FOR HIM!

I said in mine heart… “This is no man, but God! This man is not dead, this man cannot be killed, this man’s body may lie on the floor, but yet he lives… I know it for I feel Him in my very heart!”. A tear flew down my cheek and I woke up…

Beyond the Dead God – An Introductory Chapter

In absentia of experience there can be no knowledge. Thus all knowledge can be said to begin with experience. We do not, nor could we even in theory, experience the world directly, but rather we experience a representation of the world as it is given by our senses, which are instruments connecting us to the world. Instruments as fragmentary parts of reality interfere with said reality as observation is attempted, thus making intrinsic reality unknowable for no absolute knowledge can be gained without a non-interferential, hence non-real instrument. For us to be able to form this phenomenological representation, the underlying world must be sine qua non regular, otherwise our sensory instruments would never be able to piece any phenomenon together, res ipsa loquitur, and we would have no experience. The regularity of the world is an a priori for us to have a representation of the world.

To communicate our experiences we use language. Language is the logical system whose sine qua non function is to express meaningful propositions about the world. Propositions are mosaics of our phenomenological representation, formed of a series of words, which in turn form smaller images of this representation. A proposition is true in as much as it is a mosaic that correctly matches with our representation of the world. The essence of any proposition is a noun, a word which aims to point to something in our representation of the world. According to our senses there are two such categories that can be pointed to. The first category is the external category which includes things such as physical objects, descriptions, events, etc. The second is the internal category, which includes things such as feelings, thoughts, impressions, desires and the like. Whatsoever noun does not point to any of these categories is therefore meaningless since it points to nothing which is part of our reality. However, we must not forget that the reality that can be perceived is not necessarily the whole of reality, and therefore there comes a point where we are no longer able to say anything more meaningful about a noun.

When God is used in a sentence as a noun, what is it really pointing to? Is it pointing to an inner feeling that we have? If so then we cannot claim to be pointing to something objective, something out in the world, but rather to something inside of ourselves. As such it becomes meaningless to claim that God is a being, unless indeed we aim to claim that a being other than us lives in us, something that is entirely intellectually redundant. If it can’t be pointing to an inner feeling, then God must be pointing to something physical in the external world, as all things in the external world, according to our observations, are physical. But if God is something physical within the world, then clearly he is limited in his attributes by this physicality. Not only this, even more, no one has ever observed this God in the physical world. If God is not pointing to either of the two categories, then it becomes absolutely clear that God must be referring to something extremely vague, something un-categorisable, something that may only be partly visible in our representation.

So the question remains without an answer… what is God qua noun referring to? It seems very clear that it is referring to absolutely nothing that a meaningful noun can refer to for that matter. Therefore it is meaningless to talk about God, a word which points to absolutely nothing clear in the world in which we live. We cannot know of any different worlds than the world we live in, therefore all attempts to introduce things which cannot fit in our world are redundant. Once one has seen that God points to absolutely nothing specific, the word can easily be dropped. It becomes a tautology to say “there is no God” because we cannot make any statements about something that is not fully part of our world. For that matter, whatsoever is not part of our world cannot possibly have any meaning to us, creatures who live and make their habitation in this world. Similarly, stating that “there is a God” is just as incoherent, as the word has no exact reference in the real. Supposing only a part of God is visible in the real, then the part that is visible cannot be God, because it is only a limited part of the greater whole. Therefore there comes a limit after which we can no longer say anything more meaningful about God.