Several Days’ Disparate Inspirations

I am a creature of habit, and it is novelty, above all, that this universe seeks to produce.

The Fullmetal Alchemist movie has a mature stroke of genius, where in an alternate universe a beloved character from the series is actually a Nazi. He is a great father, beloved friend, a wonderful man, but he serves in the army of the Third Reich, a fan favorite. He’s a loyal soldier – it was just the wrong place and time for his loyalty. Gurren Lagann also has a moment like this, where at the end of the series a scene acknowledging all who died along the way also includes the villains. The villains were teachers, in the end, necessary forces who helped the protagonist to grow. They could have been stomped out and dismissed as the fascists they were, but instead, they were acknowledged as one more turn in the evolution of the drill. This is another great stroke of maturity and genius.

Most people, when it comes to foreign policy, they don’t even pretend to have empathy. Take foreign military bases for example. How would you feel if another country, an imperial power, had a base and foreign soldiers in your home city? Would you feel good about this? No one ever thinks if others’ lives were their own, no one in political power has empathy, straight from drones down to Palestine. But even liberals will stop me here. They’ll say I’m being too simplistic, and this is where universities have gone wrong. Corporatized or not, the lesson of academia is relativism. There are always two sides, we can’t really know anything, everything is constructed out of language, this kind of thinking. No one can have strong stances on anything other than gender and race. Everything else is so uncertain. I’m not sure what to do about this attitude, but it leads to a weak willed world, a world where either you work hard and abide by dogma or question that dogma but end up at sea, unsure of yourself and the world, and thus unable to create great things. Relativism is a painful sentence, a life where every thought is immediately answered by its opposite equal. Who can get anything done? But the paradox is that the social issue-obsessed progressives preach relativism while practicing dogma. They are so certain you can’t even discuss Palestine until you’ve done so through the lens of intersectionality. But in doing so they ignore moral truisms, fundamental moral principles, that are far simpler and less controversial. I really believe morality is a common sense thing when it comes to killing people and supporting the killing of people. No one is willing to make a sacrifice, they all want someone else to. It’s the opposite of the golden rule, the opposite of Socrates’ moral ideal, which is that it is better to be harmed than to harm. Better to be afraid than, in fear, to fire rockets over the border. Morality is simple. The left shoots itself in the foot by pretending that nothing is simple, and that you need to study it in in depth first to have an accurate opinion. That’s facile. Common sense is real and has moral implications. Among them being, if you refuse to forget 9/11 when it happens to you, then you can’t kill thousands of some other country’s people for the sake of your national ‘interests’. That’s called being a sociopath. And it is as simple as that. We don’t even need to invoke a lecture on colonialism. We can, but to the common citizen, what is going to matter more – elementary morality or a whole pile of academia? Relativism denies the obvious answer – it says that your common sense is another man’s bullshit. There is no common ground. There is no human nature. All is constructed, and all can be constructed in any way. Reality is not so. There is ground beneath our feet and matter in our brains.

The academy has taken an unforgivable shit on mythology. Either it is all viewed in terms of gender and sexuality, which (mostly) bores me to tears, or it is transformed into evolutionary psychology. Gone is Jung, gone is myth, there is only the politics and the sciences of the day.

“Mafia”

It would be amusing to see conventionally-minded people, these New York Times kind of people, explain what is ethically wrong with the mafia. What is wrong with what they are doing? They are acting in the service of their own interests, regardless of who gets killed along the way. Is this not the credo of all civilization? To pursue the interests of the state for the benefit of the powerful people within that state? So what’s wrong with the mafia?

‘They break the law!’ by doing the same exact thing that the government is praised for. Calculating interests, then doing whatever needs to be done. Is there something intrinsically moral about when the state does it?

Either way, the mafia just does what we do. We should praise their victories and condemn their errors. Vietnams, Iraqs, those kinds of ‘failures’ that result in the deaths of millions of people and yet are nothing more than failures of strategy, not morality. Then we go cry about how immoral Vladimir Putin is.

In the mafia, we can condemn a botched murder job and praise a successful one.

When power serves us, it’s good. When it doesn’t, it’s bad. When we win, it was justified. When we lose, the problem is that we lost. The strategy of cold calculation, of evil, and of victory!

“Time”

Time is the elusive nature of the world, the thing that makes it possible for something to both be and not be. The tree bears fruit, and it is dead. The ground is covered in snow, and it is covered in shimmering grass. Both can be true, but time decides which is true at the moment. What is a moment? The elusive nature of the world.

Any higher species must attain a numbness to time. Unlike humans, who are affected by minutes and seconds, a great consciousness would measure time in years and decades. Even then, they would be so small. Time, in order to get anywhere, must be measured in centuries. But this is only human time we’re talking about. In cosmic time, a million years is something to scoff at. It takes nearly fourteen billion years from the Big Bang to get to the realm of the written word. Any being that is truly interested in understanding this unfolding picture must be able to look at it from a great distance. We are fruit flies who die within it, with under a century to our name. If the world was to be viewed from the perspective of a great consciousness, then truly something like a day would be completely meaningless. A year would be the smallest unit of measuring change. Even then, it is small. A month? Don’t humor me.

But time has realized this, and it is now racing to meet us. Where it once took a billion years for a single multicellular organism to form, it has only taken a hundred thousand for thinking apes to appear and to dramatically change the appearance of the planet. Of course, in something like a few hundred years, we will know the full extent of human activity on the climate. But that’s the thing – a few hundred. This is a universe that once only dealt out major change by the billions of years, and any real evolutionary change takes roughly a million years to occur.

The theory of evolution has only existed for the past 155 years, and the discovery of DNA was even more recent. The entire universe was lifeless for over ten billion years, and now it’s taken under 200 years for apes to both formulate the theory of evolution and uncover its genetic underpinnings. From the industrial revolution to the information age, humankind has made a world that has never before existed. We are just beginning to discover who we are, but if each stage of cosmic evolution really occurs faster than the last, then the third act of the cosmic drama may soon be closing. The first was the universe without life, the second was life without thought, and now we are living in the third and most interesting act, the era where thought has sprung forth from life. This is the third act. What, possibly, could be the forth?

Time is racing to meet us. If the massive discoveries of the past two hundred years can happen again in the next twenty, if the exponential rate at which the universe produces new forms continues to accelerate, then we very well may reach act four of history in our lifetimes. This would mean the emergence of some fundamentally different mode of existence, like life and like conscious thought.

Time is alchemy, and it transmutes creation from one thing into another. It transmutes a vacuum of dust and particles into a world of oceans and sky, to be gazed upon by apes who feel the need to reflect on it all. It’s the same universe, but looking at it from its inception to the modern day – it really isn’t the same at all. Not even close. Time transforms reality into something that, years prior, would have been considered a fantasy. This is true whether it’s ten years or ten billion. So what awaits us in the future? In another thirteen billion years? Well, if anyone asked this shortly after the Big Bang, only a blithering fool would say: “There will be living, breathing matter that can think and write and also kill itself.” But that blithering fool would be absolutely right. Everybody else, who reasonably predicted ‘dust and a whole lot of nothing’, would have been dead wrong.

Reality builds on itself, layer by layer, like the ultimate masterpiece. Where will it build next? We know the materials at its disposal, and there are more than ever: atoms and chemical bonds, blood and brain, and the more elusive realm of thought, memory, and self-awareness. Where could all of this possibly lead? The wonder of possibility absolutely permeates our universe. It has given us thinking apes, and as apes, we can use our thought to probe possibilities, and to imagine (wrongly) what is next.

“Law”

Our prisons are filled with people who committed no violent crime. Drugs. Addiction. We punish the indulgence of these patterns. We jail everyone. A prison state, a police state. But where is prosecution for those who kill thousands under the angelic wing of the state? God is immune from crime. God can commit no crime. God’s murder is infallible, man’s murder warrants Hell. The self-righteous accusers, the archangels with swords raised – when will their reckoning come?

The war on drugs, the war on habit, the war against habit waged by the most habitual of us all: fools who consider law justification for itself. It is this delusion that creates dualism between angels and demons. It creates a false world where demons are who the news says they are, and the military and the police are angels carrying forth the will of God. An Afghani defending his village is a demon, a foreign soldier from an imperial power is an angel. This is the perspective of law, which condemns an Afghani for killing a soldier and praises a soldier for killing an Afghani.

This is the injustice at the core of human society: the justification of crime when the criminal is considered an angel, and the hollow condemnation of demons for the same offenses. Indeed, the “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” crowd worship the throne of God – they stand before Yahweh and proclaim His righteousness – blind to the fact that He is a murderer, and proud of it. But to them, God is not a murderer by definition, and neither are His angels. Faith snuffs out the truth until only the void is left. Lock ‘em all up, and throw away the key.

Angels and demons are the same in spirit – they desire power, they seek to conquer and control. They are fine with the world as it is, they just want to rule it. Power is God, and those who fall on the wrong side of power can be considered demons. The powerful can be called angels.

Our age is no different from any other – we have merely pretended to transcend savagery. Pretense of ‘progress’ hides the face of the beast. Angels and demons are one, and they pray for the fortune of the same God.

“Reality”

Why do we fear reality? Because reality, for the vast majority of people on this planet, is suffering. There is no armada of good, no army of heroes dedicated to righting the world or making it safe from fire and death. Good, where it does exist, is often punished and marginalized. This is a world where heroes die miserable and anonymous, and a truly villainous ethic, justified murder and justified poverty, operates the levers of power. Who could face such a thing? Surely, no one can internalize it. The world is not as it should be, and it is this tension that creates stress, fear, depression, nihilism and finally the energy that is born in darkness to transcend it all.

From death springs life. The entire universe is one long tale that begins in darkness. From nothing, something emerges. This is the legend of all existence, the incredible story that serves to tell every other. The world transcends itself, over and over, and it will do it again. The only difference is that this time, there will be ape minds to doubt the transcendence, and articulate their doubts into language.

Of course, we are in a far more unique and beautiful position than just this. We are the universe’s transcendence of itself. We are matter’s most absurd and impossible form, brain made from meat that can witness landscapes visible only to a ‘mind’. A floating forest, dangling above the endless sea. A great magenta tower that spirals past the clouds. Where are these images? What are they? What is their relationship to a world that is filled with beauty, and now bears minds that can imagine beauty of their own? How can apes create anything, least of all anything of value, anything that could be considered ‘genius’ or a ‘masterpiece’.

The creative potential of the universe has found its outlet – thinking apes. It is as absurd as it sounds, and this is the place that we live. A place where an explosion occurred in nothingness and ushered forth ‘matter’, which would be the foundation of all reality. This foundation, once comfortable as cosmic dust, planets and rocks, has become more than ever seemed possible. It has become us, whatever we are.

Why should matter ever grow eyes and ears, and see and hear the world? Why should it then be able to ask this question? Why should I, matter, be able to type this now and through meat alone, you understand it? Why should dust and rocks have given way to anything even remotely like this?

In the end, mind is the puzzle that no mind can solve. We can hope that there is something beyond mind to make sense of it all, some divine force, or we can make that force with our own hands. Through mind, we can seek to transcend ourselves. Does this sound absurd? Well so does conscious matter, and that’s the very thing enabling this ‘absurd’ thought. Madness can build upon madness into the sublime, so long as it tethered to something real. And after all, the ever-changing and implausible nature of this universe seems to be an undeniable reality.

Ahriman and Lucifer

By Alex Blum

If the universe is in fact infinite, then every point within it could be considered the center. Accordingly, the Earth, and the human species, could literally qualify as the center of an infinite universe. However, so could any empty patch of space, or any pile of dust on any forsaken star. This is the problem of relativism in a nutshell – that in a world without absolute truths, everything is NOT objectively better than nothing. A world filled with life is not better than a barren molten wasteland. A world of creative human beings is not more worthwhile than a world of pure instinct and animality. The ultimate conclusion of this kind of thinking is nihilism, or at least, a tacit acceptance that what we do, in the end, truly does not matter. It is the same value-wise for humanity to wipe itself out as it is for us to conquer the stars. Why muster any will at all?

Academia, in my experience, instills within individuals the infinite deluge of relativism. In a world without abstract Truth we turn to tangible, smaller truths, and we seek to make our politics our religion. The curse of the age is the replacement of spiritual truth with political truth. What is a lie in a world without Truth? Only a narrow thing. We can only know narrow things. This is academia. We have so much, so many ideas, so many books, so many films, so many texts, that in the end the sum total is nothing. Everything is in fact nothing and this is the funnel of nihilism and despair. The whole of the sea sloshes around in our minds and Kant and Hegel and Faulker and Derrida all swirl together into a thing that is unspeakable and has no conclusion. Those who dwell on this, who can’t get over relativism, find themselves with two reactions: to escape the world or to ignore most of it. To run away from it all or to become a careerist philistine and cling to a narrow Truth.

Most people have their narrow Truths. A Christian, even in the sea of relativism, even when nothing is so, can see the resurrected Christ and know that is ground to stand in. The same is true of every religion. A young progressive, in the end, knows wholeheartedly that feminism and anti-racism are the Truths they must represent in the world. Even if all is dust, that reality in their mind will still remain. And to Richard Dawkins, there is scientific atheist materialism, the Truth that we are meat and there is no afterlife and no soul. Marxists have obviously placed Marx and often intersectionality as their Truths, and modern conservatives uphold the radiant light of free markets and prosperity. The person who is truly screwed is the thinking person without an ideology masquerading as Truth. The one who sees the sea of relativism, and chooses to brave it without absolutes, a ‘maybe logic’ (as Robert Anton Wilson would put it) without giving into relativism or giving up and accepting a half-Truth. These are brave thinkers, the kind of thinkers we all aspire to be – the great synthesizers who see all sides and yet plainly see that there are decisive angles to take. It is not ‘all a wash’.

Modern academia, of course, is focused on turning these kinds of thinkers into academics. All sources of power perpetuate themselves. Creativity is less important than following the theme, and today the theme of relativism seems deeply entrenched in the postmodern. Postmodernism and deconstructionism are about taking things apart, not putting them together. The deconstructionist is often incapable of creative genesis, as he has been taught how to take stories apart. He has been trained to look for ideology and unweave the narrative, replacing an epic with an academic analysis. To my mind epics matter far more than the literary theory that rises in their wake, but to academe, deconstruction supersedes creation. It is more important to disassemble ideas than to assemble or synthesize ideas that strike the heart as novel and true.

The postmodern liberal arts academy is actually quite sinister to the creative mind. It fills us with the deluge of all great stories, all great texts, ideas, authors, poets, theorists and philosophers, and expects us to assert and market our own place within it. How? When there is no truth, when every idea is countered by another idea and the relativist sea swishes around inside our skulls, how are we to simply add another piece of ideology to the pile? We become demoralized. We do not create, we only deconstruct. This is the curse of academia.

How are we to muster the will to create when we are utterly overwhelmed with equally potent ideas coming from all sides? We can’t synthesize the whole sea, at best we can bite off a piece of it, which is what much of fiction is – literary novels often focus on being fractured or portraying one time in a characters’ life vividly. The age of Milton, Dante, Homer is long behind. The Gods and the muses and the spirit world are too much to face without an ideological lens – instead we turn to neurosis, or the smaller things. We are the prodigious children too paralyzed to act, too paralyzed to take true risks. Especially for those majoring in art, finding one’s own voice while studying literature or art or music must be nearly impossible. At a certain level, one must internalize certain truths without being dogmatic, and then simply have faith in themselves. But which ideas to pick? Perhaps small political ideas, like being in favor of diversity. These are valuable but they are easy truths that ultimately place the stakes far lower than the epics of years past. We deserve epics, I feel, if we truly are at the center of the infinite deluge of relativism.

However, depression is a common and predictable consequence of all this. Depression and anxiety are consequences of being ‘beneath the surface’, literally buried in the waters of the sea of all ideas and unable to find anything that rings True, true enough to get us out of bed in the morning. Most liberal arts students are too smart to take easy outs like Christian fundamentalism, but incapable of a true synthesis. They settle for politics, as I’ve already stated. But political involvement is surface-level for the postmodern soul, steeped in fading and evanescent images and terribly anxious of its own future, its ultimate meaning, its own specialness in the universe. When one is submerged deep enough in the sea, they enter into a state of life without living. I have felt this condition, and it is profound in its reduction of the soul. Nothing is worth doing because there are only motions, forms, shadows, no content to stand behind, no Truth that won’t fall apart from behind. One can be struck with the experience of a truly great thought while feeling only rolling orange colors on the edges of their consciousness, unable to find anything tangible. The mind runs and runs and unfolds and blossoms in spheres and circles, and every thought within fades as quickly as it came. The soul of depression has no pride, it is ruled by fear. It yearns for the success of others, for any validation at all. It wishes it had written every book, sang every song, won every award and slept with everyone it ever wanted to. It fears most of all being thrown away like a shot deer without dignity. it fears being talentless and forgotten, its anxiety can never be quenched. The consciousness of depression sees zero and infinity, but lacks the steps to bridge the two. Swamped in overwhelming waters, the self gives in to the opposite side of everything – nothing at all.

Depression is a hyper-awareness of all the issues we cannot face, all the Truth that plays us for fools, and our subsequent paralysis. But the way out of depression, the way out of paralysis, is a radical answer. To my mind history offers two: the consciousness of Ahriman and Lucifer. Ahriman is the thesis, Lucifer the antithesis. Ahriman, the materialist devil in Zoroastrianism, proposes the path of capitalism – the philistine who pushes all the sea out of his mind and becomes a careerist, an opportunist. You live solely to get yours, to usher away your own fear by attaining wealth, which is equivalent to power. The Ahrimanic path is the go-getter, the Harvard 4.0 graduate who goes on to work at Wall Street and make a billion dollars. This is the path of self-consumption, as anyone with a leftist bent on economics and climate policy will tell you. Capitalism swallows itself, this industrious and careerist spirit is essential for launching civilization but in the end it destroys it. Marx, on this point, was spot on: capitalism eats itself from the inside out. Limitless self-promotion, self-marketing, self-propagandizing, all with the goal of personal profit, is like a pencil soaring through a tissue. At first it lifts it like a tent, and then it bursts through and leaves a crater behind.

The opposite answer is Lucifer, the consciousness of poets and the moon, those too frail and thoughtful for life. They yearn to escape from life and live inside the imagination. If Ahriman’s future includes economic collapse, climate disaster, bank failure and the collapse of empire, then Lucifer’s future is to halt all industry and flee into the woods. This is the radical progressive who sees that piecemeal reform will never make a dent in climate change, and so the only answer, essentially, is to destroy the modern world and remake it. The spirit of absolute rebellion is, however, also the spirit of absolute escape. Lucifer is depressed – he sees zero and infinity and he wants to scream his will into the void until his empty hands hold the sun. He loses against God, Ahriman, every time. Ahriman must burn himself out – he must be destroyed from within. Lucifer cannot destroy him because Lucifer feeds him – both impulses guide all of history as the interplay of idealism and materialism.

Ahriman will drive this world into the ground through relentless material exploitation at the cost of infinite spiritual regression, the deformity of human beings who have been reduced to one impulse: make money and lock the doors. Lucifer offers no tangible solutions. He will either escape to another country, a cabin in the forest, go off the grid, or become the sun and incinerate the world economy as his dying breath. This is the will of the suicide bomber. Since Ahriman will destroy himself, if Lucifer destroys him it will only continue the dialectic.

What is needed is a synthesis of Ahriman and Lucifer, because both will drive this world into the ground. But how can this be achieved? I have a kernel of an idea, but it is admittedly Luciferic in that it is unreal. However, it involves the intersection of Lucifer and Ahriman, the place where matter and dreams combine and one may finally realize the other. The idealist claims that the mind, all ideas and the landscape of the imagination, sculpts matter in its image. This is far more hopeful than materialism, which declares, as Ahriman and Dawkins do, that mind is a slave to matter, that the self is just a ghost sprung from a bundle of nuanced meat and that we are all animals.

If there was a way for Luciferic consciousness to utilize Ahrimanic consciousness, then through matter, the mind could be fully realized. This is very abstract so what I am precisely getting at is this: the answer is in creativity, in human genius, in the material evolution and the civilization that humans have created to serve profit, not humans. But if Ahrimanic technical genius could serve the unbound freedom of the imagination, humankind would be liberated from the wall we are pressed up against, the unwaking night of relativism that the educated world is now seeped in.

Human exceptionalism has always stemmed from our ability to create new worlds. No other species is capable of creating a world. In fiction, in poems, in songs and television, in all manner of epics, worlds branch off from our own and are made in our minds. In our heads we create a story that we from our own perspectives live in. We create worlds for others too, what we imagine they are, the world we construct that they came from into ours. Science is Ahrimanic. The arc of its knowledge has moved toward materialism, toward the understanding of human beings as nothing but machines, computers housed inside biological robots who are programmed to survive. However, science can be applied to change physical reality, whereas stories and dreams can only affect internal realities. This has always been the majesty of applied science – the ability to create cities, to take a skyscraper out of the mind and make it real, just as our ancestors saw a spear in their minds and made it real.

If climate change is soon to shake the world, if capitalism is self-destructive, if relativism has claimed the minds of the educated and rendered thought immobile, then the human species has hit a brick wall. The very word ‘post-modern’ implies an indefinite length of the period, as if everything after the modern is the end of actual progression and all that is left is deconstruction and fracturing. We can’t make anything more, we can only take it all apart. This is the facile non-wisdom of postmodernism. This is the anti-human and anti-life knowledge that exists at the core of the academy. Disregard it and instead weave Lucifer through the tendrils of Ahriman, stop running horizontally along the wall and leap over it.

The leap is literally to create a new world for human beings to live in, beyond the devastation of a ruined Earth, beyond the collapse of the world economy, there are two worlds open for the most interesting stage yet in the human journey. The first is the Luciferic dream of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk, a future in space. I know nothing of this so I will leave it to be developed further.

The second is virtual reality; potentially the human destiny. How can it be any other way? We have sculpted the world outside and now we have made worlds within screens. The world within the phone, and the videogame. If apes can create cities they can create cities within cities. Virtual cities will house disembodied consciousness to live in a kind of Luciferic paradise after the decay of the material world. All that will remain on the ravaged Earth are massive hard drives housing colonies of minds living in real virtual worlds, with car keys made of code and bodies made of code. It will start with the elite and quickly incorporate everybody, like an ark as the Earth is rendered unlivable by climate change or nuclear devastation. In a virtual world the imagination is set free from matter. In this world, the landscapes of all the epics that have marked history can become literally real. Just think about 3-D modeling – the absurdity of apes being capable of modeling alternate digital worlds is just as unlikely as apes being able to live inside those worlds. What even is ‘digital’? Why should an ape be capable of creating such novel ways of expressing its own creativity? Interior worlds incarnate in matter separate from the ones that exist inside our own head? Our ability to make worlds is our final trump card against the universe.

The anxiety of the age demands a radical future. The center will not hold, and the evolution of Ahrimanic technology will not stop. It is the synthesis of Lucifer and Ahriman that will save us, the manifestation of Lucifer’s will through the knowledge and application of Ahrimanic consciousness. With both, we can create a new world. As Terence McKenna once said, we are not at the end of history, we are not headed for apocalypse, but rather, “we are a species burning its bridges and preparing to soar into the stars”. If climate change is the past world swallowing itself, if we will truly burn the world and flee in the name of our cosmic ambition, then so be it. If we will destroy the world to remake it then so be it. Now I acquiesce completely into Lucifer, because of the reality of an uninhabitable Earth being woven by Ahriman. The forces of history act in close concert. Only your individual will can make their synthesis.

Into the stars or deep into the mind, life will transcend itself. It did so the moment slimes became rodents, rodents became apes, and apes built cities and modeled fantasy worlds inside computers of their own creation. We will transcend ourselves again. The next time, it will be a cosmic event on par with the origins of all life. It will be the second coming, the revelation, the synthesis at the end of one act of history and the birth of the next. Slowly, the universe is evolving into something else. All of cosmic history is the story of this grand unfolding into the novel and the new, from the first respiratory system to the advent of 3-D modeling.

Christian Existentialism in an Evolving World

By Alex Blum

The human being is, to modify a classic viewpoint, an ape with an eye for becoming an archangel. Morally, this is what we seem to be, but on the level of productivity we are far more. The beaver makes a dam. The ant makes tunnels. The chimp makes a straw to suck ants out of tunnels. But humans destroy the entire forest to make a city and put all these creatures in a zoo made by engineers and architects, based on mathematical formulas we’ve created and then go home to our private domiciles and watch television, life recreated through technology and beamed into the eyes of us ‘apes’. We make a Large Hadron Collider, invent law, invent medicine, invent philosophical theories, make art and invent art theories, write books, put on plays, build nuclear weapons, speak in baby voices to little animals and shoot apex predators dead and skin them to mount on our walls.

The diversity of action in the human species, as well as the capabilities open to the species, are without a doubt transcendent beyond those of any known other. An elephant may be intelligent, but does an elephant do anything but eat, mate, defecate and in other words, simply live? The human being is bored with life. We seek to create something beyond it, we seek to transcend it – we feel immense existential guilt and go to cathedrals to confess. We feel intimate longing, lose ourselves in dreams, become depressed and lose our capabilities while living in a man-made world. A bear walking through a city is like a human walking through the kingdom of God. What does a deer do on an open highway? It runs into it because it doesn’t know what the hell a highway is. Were a human being to gaze upon the divine, our reaction would be the same – we wouldn’t know what the hell it is. We’d run wide-eyed and screaming, burned by the flames of Truth, haunted by the dark night of the soul. Read Ralph Waldo Emerson and then watch a chimp live. Without intellectual dishonesty, tell me that Emerson’s thoughts do not elevate him above the chimpanzee in the same way that an angel’s deeds would elevate them above a human being.

Indeed, a human can be less than human. A human being who lives like an animal is essentially an animal. Humanity is a possibility, a burden, and a curse. It is the whispering of the Goddess Sophia into the ear of a creature who is not ready and cannot face her. However, we must live as if we can. Humanity, like courage, is a wager – to become something impossible, at the cost of all complacency.

Philosophically, narrowly, we can ascribe the human/animal divide to a combination of the faculties of reflection and intervention. Reflection and intervention go hand in hand. The reflection upon any single thought and then the ability to act in accordance or in opposition to it. As an example: I’ll go drink coffee, then followed by another thought, Wait, I always drink coffee at this time. Why follow pattern? Followed by I’ll drink tea instead. Without the ability to reflect and act in this way, a human is hardly a human. We must reflect upon our behavior in order to change it. Indeed, we reflect upon our own genetic code and seek to change it. No other animal can have any pretense to this domain. Purposive rationality arises from this inherent reflection, this inherent thoughtfulness, in being human. Humanity rests upon the worth of truly human thoughts.

Thus we return to the moral dimension, to the conceptualization of humanity as a moral ideal. An animal yearns for power, because power is its only recourse in a world without humanity. There is a reason why we call cruelty inhuman. It is forfeiting our exceptionalism, our ability to speak and to create, to love and to harmonize, and instead embracing the fear-struck and spear-prodded beast running through the jungle in search of a weapon. An animal yearns to possess the very fear which destroys it, and the wielding of fear is power. Our current ‘human’ world, for all its transcendence, is based on fear and power. It is a world where might makes right, where the human is a machine in the service of the production of wealth, where the only ‘higher goal’ is to produce enough money to survive. International relations is a game of whoever the biggest bully is, and how much they can sculpt the world in their image while casting that image as that of the beautiful savior. Any behavior can be justified, the destruction of individual lives means nothing: the interests of states and corporations are elevated above humanity itself. We have used our institutions, made through human will, to become less human. To deny the individual the value of their own life. A world where individual lives can be thrown away for the greater good is a world where your life or mine can be thrown away for someone else’s greater good. It is the absolute undermining of the human soul. This world has doomed itself, as we consume and consume and draw forth dark oil from the Earth, we race toward our own doom. Nuclear weapons and climate change are our twin reckonings, endemic to our power-hungry nature. If we do not become human, then we will make ourselves into dust.

There are two futures open to the human race: the death and despair of self-destruction or the illumination of a truly human world. Liberal capitalist democracy cannot provide a human world, for even the ‘liberal’ president Barack Obama presided over the unchallenged Sword of drones, mass incarceration, free trade, taxes without universal healthcare, the illusion of grace and the reality of the fist of inhuman Judgement. When Barack Obama kills civilians in Pakistan, he is killing his own family. Unless he is a solipsist, he must view his innocent victims as those potentially just like him. I guess solipsism is easier.

There are strains of optimism, there is cybernetics and the hope of a disembodied future of consciousness without a body. Without bodies to destroy, evil is limited. But this world, until Ray Kurzweil tells us all he told us so, is a fantasy. Artificial intelligence is an attempt to model something we do not understand. It is the attempt of fish to make sense of water. Can brain understand brain? Can a human understand humanity? Immersed in truths, can we speak of Truth? We hit an inevitable ceiling.

A being immersed in being, a living thing living in life, cannot rise above life or being. The hope of a final philosophical synthesis is reserved for archangels and God. However, the reality of subjectivity cannot stop us from being human. It is, if Soren Kierkegaard is to be believed, Truth itself. Each of our lives is a fruit on a branch of the tree of life. All branches return to the same tree, and each one has its own truth to fulfill. The part, expressed to its fullest, reaches the universal whole. All we can do is fulfill our own individual part in being human, and through our own lives, seek to reach the universal whole from which all emanates and which we call God. That whole is the undifferentiated flow of all meaning, all being, all beauty and all truth. Every meaningful piece of art is a finite representation of this infinite ocean of life and soul.

So then, I would like to put forth my truth, a subjective thing that I ultimately must fulfill, and in fulfilling it I become a complete part of the world. I do my part to be human through a lens that helps me become human. The harnessing of this lens is the development of the individual into their own, and any tradition that they seek to represent. For me, it is evolutionary existentialist Christianity. Each of these terms informs the other, and the result is neither evolution, existentialism nor Christianity. It becomes a crystal through which my humanity may grow.

Evolution, an essential element in any serious worldview. With the medium of time, in this universe, being builds upon itself. From the nebulous plasma of the Big Bang formed planets, upon one planet arose life, and from life arose conscious thought and all that we have made. It’s all still matter. That’s all it’s ever been, matter-energy, and yet it can be a rock or a hand grasping the flag. Time is all that seems to decide the state of matter, and the universe packs its greatest achievements into the smallest and darkest of corners. Evolution is a reason to hope. It is the story of habit, and of novelty, and it is the force of novelty which allows the hand to break free from inanimate matter and possess a will of its own. The universe is incomplete: it is incomplete because there is novelty, it is an unfolding masterpiece and in this there is hope, that there are states of being still missing, still waiting to come into existence. If we are biology’s crowning achievement, and our own consciousness is the most baffling thing to a scientific account of the universe, then why should the novelty of the future be alien to us? Being builds upon itself. If there is pre-life, then life, then thinking life, the next step should logically emerge from within thought. What is it? Will we be able to anticipate it? Is a deer able to anticipate the emergence of highways? It will come from where we least expect it, when we least expect it. Even within our own minds, there are places so distant and so forlorn that the rising of a God from their waters would baffle the greatest of souls.

Beyond evolution, there is existentialism. The burden of biology’s greatest heights is upon our shoulders, and there is no Truth to find. Existentialism is the beauty and the humbling, the recognition of inability and in opposition to it, truest ability. It is the wisdom to realize that all truths are not True, that in the end, the only Truth is that which we affirm for ourselves. In this, there is freedom. The Truth is whatever we grasp with our own hands and assert as such. The part that is our lives becomes a fulfilled whole when the Truth becomes a World. A World is a Truth that is brought to light, that is given to something more than the self. Deepest frustration emerges from the rich soul that is unable to give its freedom to the world, that lacks a World of its own. But the beauty of existentialism is that it makes absolute Truth possible! The truth that is yours, fulfilled, becomes a Truth. It becomes its own World. Existentialism is the despair and the will, darkness and power set against one another and the will mediating between the two as the double-helix of light which shines in all our souls. There is now novelty, and hope. There is now freedom, and Truth. All that is left is a burden, a morality. A willingness to forfeit the self for the sake of itself, to forfeit the world for the sake of a World.

Christianity is the molten core of the human being. It is, finally, the recognition that we are truly human and that matter is not enough. Matter must aspire to something more, the spirit, the reconciliation of beast with archangel and the ultimate fulfillment of the being trapped between – in the burden of the cross, the burden of all humankind is realized. The Crucified surrenders his power and forsakes himself for the world: the divine itself is killed by state power for the light of resurrection. It is the principle of resurrection, of life for the Crucified, the poor, the homeless and the destitute, the trampled and those betrayed by the world of matter – the burden of humanity is the burden of the cross, carried for those who have been destroyed by matter. Christianity provides not reason, but rather an aesthetic. A context, a framing, a history based upon the cross and emanating from its salvation. The world of matter shall become the kingdom of God. The world will not be rejected, or refused, but redeemed. This is the message of the Christ, and the ultimate power of the powerless. Christ is paradox, He is light. Defeat is triumph. In death, life. The sublime madness of Christianity is the sublime madness of the conscious ape – in absolute absurdity is the breaking of the chains. The Christ is a demand for humankind to step outside of the cycle of power and fear, and aspire to the beyond. The infinite waters of Truth are the domain of the human being more so than any other thing in the material world. Without tangible angels, without a God that can act or intervene, there is only us. It is all in our hands. This existentialist Christianity, without even a God, is empowered by novelty. The completion of the universe is in our hands. God did not create us, nor did we create God. God is an ideal to be attained in the future; it is the completion of all being and the longing that the human strives toward, and that stings us most deeply when we turn away from it.

Create and express that which deserves to exist, that which must exist. Complete your part in the world through the creation of your own World, a shared Truth, give voice to the intuition which no one else has. A truly human world is a world where the individual matters, where individuality is not tethered to materialism but rather stands as a monolith, a tower, of soul. By virtue of the human brain, this potential is open to all of us. The human is that which is the above, which transcends the state of the animal and thus seeks to transcend life itself. The human being settles at nothing. The human being is an impossibility.

Humanity is a wager, a burden. It is living ‘as if’ the heights of evolution are unfolding and are yet to unfold. From a vacuum of plasma and dust, life. From life, thought. From thought, the divine. To me, this is the arc of the universe. It is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s The Phenomenon of Man, it is neo-Hermeticism, it is the ‘magical’ view of human beings, opposed to original sin and casting humanity instead as the prodigious children of a great light, tasked with bringing that light into the world. The waking world is only a testing ground, a place where one’s soul passes through matter, and through matter it makes the case for its own existence.

To quote the great God Zarathustra: “Man is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?”

Have the Courage! To Profess Nothing and Be Nothing

By Alex Blum

Today I was to speaking to someone (and by speaking I mean texting) about Immanuel Kant, a conversation in which I assessed him as a man of reason. The response: “What do you mean by reason?” was at once facetious and deeply telling of a mindset which has become the spirit of an age. Gone, is the Enlightenment ethos, Kant’s giddy expression of humanity’s light, “Have the courage to use your own reason!” We now live in an age in which reason itself is subjective, where Truth with a capital T means nothing and Plato is naught but an old white fascist. A world where the microaggression merits the recession of the intellect into a safe space, where prejudice is now the original sin that we must all cleanse ourselves of. ‘Prejudice’, which is the formation of almost all our opinions, based on aesthetic preferences and not reason or experience. To purge the human being of prejudice is to force us to find another way to decide on matters of life, love and philosophy – but what? Not reason, which is subjective. Not science, which is a sexist social construct, and least of all religion, which is an old boy’s club of superstition and foolishness. All that’s left to us is the sterile nihilism of a relativistic attitude, a world seen through the lens of race and gender where the goal is a ‘conversation’ but everyone already knows the right answer as soon as they’ve entered the room. The ‘dialogue’ is a farce, because there is only one right answer. However, these are the people who also believe that everything is subjective, save for of course the objective evils of racism and sexism through which all of human existence becomes a clear tale of oppression along superficial lines. The answer to that oppression? To promote cultural change within the bubble of an already liberal school. These social justice proposals shall surely sweep the world stage. The echo chamber, indeed, echoes a little louder.

Of course, by defending the concept of prejudice, I’ve already set myself up for being accused of writing some kind of regressive troglodyte manifesto. This is anything but. This form of prejudice has nothing to do with race or gender, but describes a larger condition that is at stake in a politically correct world. The philosopher Edmund Burke professed prejudice as a valuable human faculty, prejudice towards individuals, nations, objects and things. Anything. It is placing a deeper valuation on our intuitions, our impressions, our raw reactions to the unfolding world. It is Emersonian, to follow ourselves and the iron string that tethers all selves to absolute Truth. And if Truth is in fact our individual subjectivity resonating with the whole of humanity, then our prejudices become our deepest internal being. ‘I prefer England.’ ‘I prefer eggs.’ ‘Japan is a horrible country.’ Without our prejudices we lose our selves; when we are afraid to express them we are living in a world of repressed life. All of this is to critique an ideology that seems to view equal judgement, unthinking judgement, sterile neutral inhuman judgement, as the pinnacle of progressive ideals. We must all speak in the same canned academic language, not offend one another, and if we ever disagree, it must be along narrow grounds. This is a worldview that demands relativism: if there is no absolute truth and the goal is to eliminate all prejudices for the sake of equality, the result is a condition of pure conformity of opinion. A world without opinion, only consensus. We must surrender our prejudices, because they are offensive. Someone somewhere will not like them. So what’s the use of having any views at all? They’re all subjective and you’re only going to be wrong, or malicious, in someone else’s eyes. Best to sit back and let the world turn. Be nothing, and profess nothing.

But I’m making an argument with Edmund Burke, the ur-conservative and an old white man. Those labels alone are enough to scoff him off. Nevermind the actual meaning of the word ‘conservative’, which has nothing to do with the right-wing politics of today; the fact that one is an old white man inherently devalues his position. Noam Chomsky is an old white man, so we should listen to someone else. But Chomsky also describes himself as conservative in many ways, as it is conservative in this day and age to demand that the Commander in Chief abide by the rule of law, and that we should hold on to some archaic principles, such as a distaste for financial speculators, who were hanged in the 17th century. Perhaps also due process, which has been thrown out the window by the latest developments in Title IX, if anyone reads its procedures rather than imagining that any form of Title IX is inherently good and means equality for women. A Title IX investigation proceeds without a hearing for the respondent to even know what they’re being accused of, and the result is a finding of guilt that is kept secret. One can be accused and found guilty of a crime that remains completely unknown to them. “What the hell did I do?” The answer: “You won’t know what specifically you were accused of, or what you were found guilty of. All that matters is that the investigation was closed and we know what you did.” What kind of ‘liberal’ supports a process so Kafkaesque? But criticizing Title IX on any level is already perceived as an attack on feminism and thus an attack on women, an indication of how quickly the ideological mind moves. This speed of judgement paradoxically exists in a relativist world, which shows that no one actually believes in relativism, but that we merely profess it out of weakness.

I read an article on Gawker or Jezebel or something asking its readers not to buy any books by white, male cisgendered authors for a year in order to promote ‘diversity’. Identity politics of the worst kind. As if all white men put forth white man thoughts, and all black women put forth black woman thoughts, and the way to intellectual diversity is by packing one’s reading list, literally, with tokens of racial diversity. White men say white man things, thus their views don’t need to be heard as much. What a cage to put people in! And all from those who ultimately assert a bedrock of subjectivity, the ‘it’s all a wash’ metaphysics; everything is a social construct, nothing is set in stone, we’re all twigs in the wind with a will that ultimately turns to dust. It is existentialism with none of the courage, none of the power of being, through the will that transcends matter, the will that looks at its own genetic programming and defies it, the will that uncovers mathematics and uncovers the objective rules of materiality. The day THAT will is swallowed in an abyss of relativism is the day we need a kick in the ass.

Mathematical truth is not ‘invented’. The fact that patterns conjured up in ape brains match the patterns of the external universe requires an explanation, and our transcendence is that explanation. Mathematics is the link of the subjective mind into the hope of objectivity. It is the reason why Plato had all his students study math, and why I’m a hypocrite because I don’t. When we pretend that everything is a social construct, everything is a wash, that there are only opinions and that the world is truly ‘the big nothing’, we should all sit down and do some equations, and realize that we are apes calculating the fundamental patterns that rule the universe. Where does that action make sense in the ‘big shrug’ philosophy? We need a revival of Truth; we need a new philosophy to dig ourselves out of this postmodern hellhole we call the end of history. Will we go down as ‘the last man’, the one who is tired of life, the one who seeks comfort, the wretch who yearns to crawl back into the womb or become a small animal, because being human is too hard? That is the end that relativism allows for us. Relativism, if lived as if it were true, can only be nihilism. Living ‘as if’ is the freedom from a world without Truth, and we must live as if we are transcendent beings, capable of overcoming ourselves and spinning new wonder into existence. I believe that the postmodern condition is a cage, and the blossoming of radical social justice within it seems to indicate that the two inform one another.

Take, for example, the term ‘Person of Color’. When one analyzes this word, it begins to make sense why the postmodern attitude rejects reason. ‘Person of Color’ as a term could easily be argued to be offensive as hell. It implies that being white is neutral, no color, the default state of humanity that all else is ‘colored’ or ‘other’ in opposition to. How problematic. Furthermore, it sounds like ‘colored’, one of the most backward ways of referring to black people. If a social justice advocate wanted to make this argument, would they simply be told that they are wrong? With what reasoning? Is not everyone’s viewpoint valid? I find ‘Person of Color’ offensive, but no one will respect that. Social justice is built on consensus, and consensus shirks individual subjectivity. Subjectivity is no longer for the individual – it is for the collective. It is for the whole world. This, above all, is relativism’s mistake. The role of subjectivity is for the within, not the outside world, where things matter and there is indeed real morality that trumps ‘social constructs’. The language of direct experience makes this argument most powerfully, the language of force crushing the skull of a human being and the obvious moral truths evoked by killing individuals with drones as if they were ants. If we were those individuals, those ants, the truth of the situation becomes apparent. But empathy, too, is relative. Barack Obama, drone executioner who wields the Throne and the sword of Judgement, has a point. But serious critiques of social justice don’t. The current atmosphere in the university, despite its insistence on ‘everyone has a point’, is bizarrely closed off. It is soft and authoritarian. It is weak and it is the bully. It is the world that smacks your head on the sidewalk and asks you to follow sensitive procedure; it is both of these simultaneously and it is mad.

The current existential state among millennials of apathy, of inaction, inability, fear, anxiety and a lack of self-respect, exists for a reason. These things constitute the spirit of our times. God is dead, and those who replace Him with reason have also replaced Him with the functionary society, the human reduced to the animal, the will as profoundly un-transcendent and anthropocentrism as the great eye-roller of the century. Those who reject God and reason have become the nebulous pit of relativism, the nightmare from which we must awaken, especially in the university, if Truth is to mean anything at all. If we yearn to hold onto it at all. If we let it get away from us, we will be stuck with the infinite yearning for an infinite number of things that are infinitely hollow. The history of art and literature is a history of betrayal, as each work slowly becomes less and less powerful and we must replace it with another, as all things fade and all lovers fade and all flesh rots on the bone. And what do we have at the end of it? Faux politeness, a soft ‘dialogue’ that already has its answers and now has the federal government to enforce them. A speaker criticizing 3rd wave feminism is in fact a rape apologist, and is a danger to the student body. The 1 in 5 statistic is upheld as Truth, uttered by Obama, even though it’s not (But that’s heresy, it is a bulletproof statistic). An accidental brush or a vindictive ex could result in an investigation where you will be found guilty of an unknown crime by a court without due process. Title IX can be used as a weapon with no risk to the weapon-starved. Neo-segregationist ideas, such as dating or marrying only within one’s own race, are considered serious alternatives to white supremacy. Black people shouldn’t be friends with white oppressors, and they shouldn’t be treated the same as white friends, lest one be blind to their own privileges and the history of white crimes against People of Color. However, you also shouldn’t be racist by condescending to PoC as victims, even though radical social justice seeks to define PoC as the Oppressed – victims of white oppression. It’s a complete lose-lose where reason truly is malleable, and can mean anything. After all, it’s impossible to be racist against white people. Look up the definition of racism; our political inclinations mean more than the dictionary that was written by old white men anyway. Intellectual history is trash – it’s all biased, it means nothing, and in this bizarrely popular attitude of irreverence we have only the consensus opinions we’ve spun into our own Truth and now seek to push forth through the institution itself.

University students supposedly have the right to accuse Tea Party voters of being ‘privileged’, a voting bloc that largely lives in poverty and hasn’t had a taste of the kind of privilege that comes from a life in academia. The very fact that I’m a half-white man writing about race and gender issues invalidates my perspective – unless I agree with the social justice consensus, that is, in which case I should be applauded for my saintly progressive attitude. It is a soft authoritarianism, and universities are compromised against it. They are beholden to federal money, and like all institutions, the feast comes before the individuals they are supposed to serve. When a consensus forms, it becomes the Truth, and this more than anything else represents our times – God and Truth are whatever hold power, coercive and dishonest power. If one seeks to attain Truth, or know God, we must simply follow our own will to dominate and subjugate – politely – for the sake of resisting domination and subjugation. What does the broadly-defined relativist-postmodern-radical social justice consensus seek to dominate and subjugate? Language and prejudices; the content of one’s mind and the means to express it. I will assert once more that nearly all of our views come from non-rational or irrational aesthetic preferences that we then justify second-hand. And if this sounds like another argument for relativism, then it too must be transcended.

The ideal of the Ubermensch is one that has haunted and battered history. Wherever it is imagined, it fails because it is imagined in the context of superficial boundaries. One race is denoted as the problem. One gender. The solution of force, of absolute materialism, is too tempting for apes driven by power and fear to resist. But there is something above ape-hood, and that is humanity. It is the animal that is discontent with animality and seeks to rule the stars. Our yearning for power is a misplaced yearning for something more, something far stronger – the legacy of transcendence that we have forgotten and lost to the subjective void. Being human is an ideal in a world where the norm is animality, and animals must seek power to save themselves from destruction. But the truth of religion is that this material power is illusory. That in the molten pit of paradox, the Crucified Christ has actually affirmed his own life. The Maya is so thick that we cannot see through it. It is true that each religion is ultimately false, but it is also true that it speaks to a transcendence, a firmness in being human, a faith in the world, that this postmodern age sorely lacks. The problem is that religion itself has become primary, whereas human transcendence has become tertiary. It must be the other way around. Everything that is exceptional and beautiful about human beings should inform religion; religion should have no content in and of itself. Perhaps this solution is empty. Perhaps someday, it won’t be.

Either way, the animal has no ability to write out equations. If mathematical Truth is all we have for now, let it be the tether through which golden light may pour. The light of humanity, that which is an animal but is not happy in the world. We are being called toward something else. It is a calling that must be answered, a God that must be made with our own hands. And if this declaration is forsaken in the name of vague subjectivity, if we turn away from the light and the man-made God that must rise from intellectual despair, we have reaped what we desire and deserve. What we should do, above all, is exist as human beings, as the beings transcendent enough to work out the birth and death of stars on paper and learn the nature of the very DNA that has made us. All things are made of matter, but only one thing cares enough about matter to preside over the amassed knowledge of the sciences. We must take this Knowledge into ourselves, and transmute it into the hope that it entails, that matter can become something as absurd as a thinking ape and in that absurdity, something beyond our own minds was recognized and affirmed. From the atoms of physics come chemical bonds, from that the organic chemistry of the animal, and from the brain of the animal comes consciousness. Within consciousness we attain mathematical formulas, and what does it all rest upon? Beneath the bottom layer of physics? Mathematical formulas.

We are exceptional. Believe it, and allow your faith and your reason to synthesize into a golden core untouched by the malaise of the age and all its malcontents, especially mine and your own.

A Partial Manifesto

By Alex Blum

Last year at this time, my enemy was scientific materialism. In between then and now, I thought it was existentialism. Now, I know it to be relativism – the postmodern nightmare. What comes next must transcend all of these, as well as religion, which is but myth and dust. However, whatever transcends it must be religious. It must hold a place for the transcendence of the human being, a foundation for morality and dignity that shall not be trespassed.

Existentialism is in fact the best friend of all philosophies, most of all Christianity. The ultimate sense of purposeless is a profound power when coupled with the will to act on any thought that is worth acting upon. The freedom is infinite and painful to bear, but beautiful, and that is ultimately what existentialism is – the pain and the beauty of the will, fulfilled and unfulfilled in the waking world. The recession into dream is an easy out, but it can never be taken. The dream takes many forms, and the dreamer is trapped within them, unable to wake from that which is easier than the life imbued with the knowledge of purposelessness. That life, which moves through despair and the ultimate state of the pathetic in which the self yearns for all things and cries out for the stillborn womb, is profoundly beautiful because it recognizes that which no one can escape from. Existentialism is a burden, not unlike that of the cross, to live and to act in the world knowing that action is ultimately all that we have. If we live as if we are relativists, putting nothing forth and content to languish in ambiguity, then that is what is true. If we stand behind what matters to us and strive to bring it into the world, then that is its own truth. The synthesis of all truths becomes Truth, and the world itself is a testament to the combined wills of all humanity. If your truth is not a part of it, then the absolute Truth can never exist, as it requires all perspectives to see things as they truly are.

Existentialism is the savior of the incomplete worldview. It is the humbling, the humility that the myth requires. We can stand on our myths, our truths, our individual lives, only in acknowledging the ultimate abyss of the world without ultimate purpose. In that we find strength, just as in crucifixion the Christ finds true transcendence. It is clear now that existentialist-Christianity is my myth, my truth, that is not True but that I must live as if it were. It is the wager that must be fulfilled, the risk that must be undertaken in the world where all things come to pass and in the end the only thing that sticks is what you choose to make stick.

To the ancient Greeks, an atheist was not someone who disbelieved in God, but rather someone who acted as if there was no God. Someone who demonstrated the inhumanity of humankind, and thus severed our relation to the divine. It is this model of action, not of belief, that we should turn to when thinking of God. Actions that abide by empathetic thought and moral courage affirm the human destiny and the divine, while sociopathic and coercive behavior affirm the Godless world of material interests and desires.

The interests of a civilization, a Leviathan, a false God, like the interests of the mafia, ignore individual human life. To Yahweh, to the United States and to Tony Soprano, interests come before human lives. Someone’s an informant? A threat to the family? You whack them, no matter who they are. If someone’s a threat to this country, you wipe them out and 10,000 of their best friends. The loss of human life does not matter to a false God of power – He only cares that He is worshiped. All due respect to the boss. Disrespect the boss? Threaten the family? You die. These are the principles of the world, either stand opposed to them and die or embrace them and fight. The world of force is created when interests are held above the lives of individuals, when might truly makes right and we have no recourse when we are wronged other than to gain more power.

As long as the world is motivated by such power, the beast feeding itself at the cost of others, then we will not be humans. We will truly be animals, as the politician is, as the institutional church is, as all centers of power are – centers of beasthood that we have allowed to trample over our human souls. The human is profoundly linked to the moral, as we are the animal that can recognize our own yearning for power and stifle it, and give ourselves up to the world and instead accept absolute self-sacrifice for the sake of the other. If an animal does this, then it is human. We are all animals with the spiritual power to use our thought for the sake of becoming human.

The heights of humanity, which are linked to the moral sphere, are our burden and our promise to fulfill. The human is that which seeks these heights, that which yearns for them, and desires that which is above animality. To exude the Above, to embody it through art and through moral action, to understand theological light and divine love as the fulfillment of humanity rather than anything else, is to undertake an existential burden. The animal, the beast, is defined as the creature driven by fear and anxiety and yearning for power. A human can be an animal. We yearn for power because it is the only recourse the beast has in a world run by force and where force shatters skulls. But what lies beyond it? Above power, above ‘interests’ and in the pure empyrean sphere of moral courage and genuine creation, even at the risk of death or destruction of the self? That is the knight of faith, given over completely to God, where God is each individual’s ideal of the Above incarnate in the world. To be a knight of such faith is a cause worthy of risking life itself. After all, action is our only recourse against the assertion of relativism.

We are unfulfilled because we are what we are, and it is simultaneously enough and not nearly enough. Becoming human is a rejection of more than neoliberalism, more than racism, more than sexism, more than colonialism – the seat of seething fear and power that drives the heart of animality and the animal world we live in. This world, when transcended by becoming filled with knights of faith, will stand as the physical proof of humanity’s transcendence over animality. The world that we create will be the evidence that we are indeed the inheritors of God’s light and God’s grace, the beings who are spoken of by Hermes Trismegistus in the Emerald Tablet – the prodigious sons and daughters of a reckoning that we must bring into the world by our own will. We have thought, and no one else will think for us. We can defer this burden no longer.

Lastly, this philosophy of action is deeply rooted in the mystical notion of the Akashic Record. It is the idea that transcendent of space and time, there is a record of all thoughts, all actions, all events, all things that have ever occurred in the material world and all things that will occur. We must live as if there is such a record, in complete honesty and fidelity to our thoughts and the synthesis of thought and action. As one, they are the golden chord that transcends history that stands as proof of human transcendence. The mediation of two worlds into one, the healing of the human disconnect from the world, the reunion of God and humankind.

Monadology

By Alex Blum

NOTE: This one’s from freshman year, not as complicated, but a nice concept

Walking through the city, we find a world that spans outward from our perspective. The shining skyscrapers reflect an endless sky. The park benches reflect the shadows of trees above. But if it happened to be August 6th of 1945, the benches would reflect the ashes of dead children. The sky would reflect the death cloud of the city. These two experiences are necessary to paint a full portrait of the city, and yet we can only have one of them. Those who inherit the legacy of annihilation live in a different world than the Americans who cheered the news of the bomb. Those who have not experienced the ruin of the city cannot understand those who have. We all experience a portrait of the world, and yet we are enslaved within our own portraits. We deny the reality of the other because we are so trapped within our own experience, and our experience of the world is a Monad. Each human being can be seen as a Monad – a perspective, an observer, a cul-de-sac through which soul passes through matter. Can we ever see the city as it truly is? Can we transcend our own Monads and understand the reality of the other? We must create the perspective that is every perspective, the eyes that see the self as other and the other as self. This is the pinnacle of our conscious evolution, the Monad that contains all other Monads, and thus reflects reality most clearly.

We are ensnared in paradox, living as an observer in a world where all others are the observed. We see the world through our own eyes, a literal and metaphysical truth. I am myself and all else is other – and yet this is only true for one single locus in the universe. To anyone else, they are themselves and you are the other. This is a trivial fact, and yet within it we see the relativism that we are forced to accept. In 1945, we could not live as both an American citizen, joyous at the war’s end, and as a Japanese citizen, hunks of flesh hanging from our body as we found the corpses of our parents burned into the sidewalk. Our perspective is so painfully limited that we can never truly see the other as we see ourselves. We must pick a reality and stick with it, and other Monads are merely tertiary to our own. For the American citizen, the pain of the devastated Japanese is their problem. If the Japanese were victorious, then they too would shrug at the pain of the devastated American. But this is pure relativism. This is nothing more than slavery to the times that one lives in, and the space that one happens to inhabit. This kind of limited perspective is so simple and unevolved that we cannot stand for it – we cannot be relativists who entrench ourselves in one perspective and refuse to let go.

One Monad, alone, is a dead end. It is a slave to external stimuli, controlled entirely by its own experience and its own reasoning. The Monad must break free. It must expand over the whole world, and enrich itself through the perspectives of other Monads. And yet, this is the ultimate heresy to the ego. The ego fears other Monads, because the perspectives of others are dangerous. Our values, our ideologies, and our very souls must all face the infinite tide of the other. It is this tide, the sea of other Monads, which truly terrifies us. The suggestion that we may not be who we think we are. The suggestion that we are in fact what we despise in others. These suggestions cannot be entertained, and the perspectives that express them must be ignored. The American cannot empathize with the Japanese, nor the Vietnamese, nor the Yemeni, because it would cause our ego-crafted reality to collapse. If the other is the self and the self is the other, then we have murdered ourselves a million times over. Surely we could never face this, so we hide from it.

But we can hide from it no longer. To ourselves, we are the observer, but to everyone else, we are just one more face in the crowd. If we can justify the slaughter of other people’s children, then we should be willing to justify the slaughter of our own. If we cannot, then we are cowards who cannot face the repercussions of our own actions. Thus the synthesis of all Monads, the synthesis of all experience and all perspectives, leads us to a state of absolute empathy. When the other dies, we do not feel their pain. But if we did? If we saw every family as our own? If we saw every broken life as our own? That would be the end of hypocrisy. When we see the life of a drone strike victim as our own, it is no longer justifiable. As the intellectual distance between ourselves and our experience fades, so too will our excuses.

Perhaps that is wisdom – the attainment of many lifetimes worth of perspectives. The expansion of one narrow Monad into something far grander. We must evolve beyond the limits of our own perspective and attain the transcendental Monad, or we will forever be trapped behind the relativism of one observer and the rest of the world. We are only the observer in one reality, and that reality is no more legitimate than any other. Surely, we must act as if all others are unique observers of the world, a truism so utterly obvious that it hardly needs stating. Perhaps those who justify the suffering of others prefer solipsism. It would ease their conscience quite well.

This Monadology is a way of seeing the world through invigorated eyes. Empathy is our pathway to the Monads of others, and it is through those Monads that we may evolve as individuals. Each Monad is a spectrum, an array of color created through the interplay of light and darkness, with the material world acting as a prism. The surface reveals only a smiling face, a single hue, with all the rest buried deep inside. If we unearth the color within others that we see so clearly within ourselves, then we can transcend our individual limits and find a Monad that reflects more than just one point of view.

We are each experiencing a unique aspect of this world. Tucked away in every life is an aesthetic, a tone, a feeling, an immaterial force that that person came to represent. In stories, this is evident. The mythical framing of the character takes on a life of its own and becomes far more than the sum of its parts. We are all characters, each revolving around the perspective of the main character, who is at once everyone and no one. Can we kill? Can we ever justify the annihilation of the spiritual force that each human being truly, fundamentally is? We must seek to understand and absorb the experience and nuance of each Monad, each piece of the complete soul, and we will arrive at a more complete truth, and a more honest worldview.