Where does it begin?
Where does it end? What makes
sense in logic and reason? If we begin with
the premise of Love as the deciding factor in our equation, then logically and
rationally what follows may not be what would follow if we choose something
else. Yet to believe in Love is not
necessarily the belief you would find in the world in general for few truly do.
Existence is something that proves itself. Life does not need an explanation to
exist. But death demands an explanation
because it is a finality. It is the end
of a life. This is why death is the
heart of philosophy. Death is what
demands an answer, not Life.
It is in death that we truly are faced with the facts of
mortality and immortality. In endings
there is fear. No one knows what lies
beyond, so terror comes as well. Philosophy
would cease to exist if the political machinations of the dialogue of Life
itself as it is lived in the world were to make the decisions of what is possible
and what is not. And so there is
resistance to the idea of death being the end in philosophy. It is abhorrent to believe otherwise.
From this arises two forms of thought police. The first seeks to destroy philosophy in order
to end the dialogue of possibility that life after death exists (see the life of
Socrates as the example). The second
seeks to destroy the idea of death itself being the ending. From this war can only arise two different
viewpoints on the nature of reality. The
first would call itself realism and would be atheist in nearly all
instances. The second would call itself
spiritual and seek to preserve the logic and reason of the individual in the face
of death.
Idealism would die by the hands of the realist, so romantics
must preserve it. This is a question of Justice,
the Justice of Truth that lies at the heart of the idea of immortality of the
soul. For without Immortality of the
Soul, the whole of Life shall become meaningless. And of course, it would appear to be a great injustice
against the created. Death cannot be the
end of the soul even if it is the end of body.
While this common dialogue goes into the beginning of a
nearly endless debate about what is real and what is not real about Life, the
most important point I would prefer to make is that all ideas must be grounded
in fundamentally provable hypothetical arguments. An example of this is that the end of the
soul is unjust or the end of the spirit is unjust or the end of the being is
unjust. Each of these three related
arguments speak to a simple concept that is itself provable by reason of
hope.
Hope provides the final argument. Of course the being will live on in whatever
form, and the spirit and the soul will live on unless they are evil. This sort of argument requires no physical proof
because the proof takes the form of a spiritual cause and effect question. Nearly everyone can agree to the idea because
it must be so if Love or God/Goddess are real.
What about the individual?
The individual is singular in their nature connected to all others by
all their relations. As such the
individual is within a divine network of relational grid patterns linked by
light line logic. Their entire reality
spiritually is that while the majority of their experience on the Earth is controlled
by the dark, the absence of the significance of the light in day to day
interactions with people who see them as something other than what they are.
There are a series of arguments that follow proving every Truth
there is about every individual.
Logically the arguments exist.
Logically all the relationships also exist. What follows is the reason for why. Why what you may ask? For why Love is eternal. The bounds between individuals are their
relationships. All relationships will
perfect in time. Reincarnation provides
for the opportunity to correct the relationship. Everyone ultimately wants to correct their
relationships when they understand. All
relationships are eternal and in a state of perfecting.
These Truths also do not require physical proof. These Truths are part of spiritual
proofs. Alternative ideas fall under
one lifetime and atheist concepts of reality.
An atheist may believe in all this just not in any ultimate Goddess. Such an atheist would be called a spiritual
atheist. The proof is in the romantic
nature of the idea. Death may kill us,
but it cannot kill our the consequence of our Faith acted upon before we die.
What we choose to believe is what we choose to believe. This is the romantic glory of idealism. We die, but we believe.
It is a mathematical perfection the logic and reason of the
gridwork, the map of all my relations.
Understanding it is easy. If you
understand that you are here on Earth doing work because you must work for the
perfection of creation, then you also understand that the ultimate perfection
of creation is displayed in our relationships to those closest to us. Those relationships and their state of
perfection are a reflection of what stage of spiritual development the
individual soul is at.
I could continue with this dialogue, but I have merely
wished to reflect on the true state of ideas and what is real and what is
not. I measure my temple in Innocence,
for all true answers will respect Innocence as the final solution. I judge my temple by Love, for Love is the essence of all. For if it is true, then all my relations are
favored by the will of my own hand to perfect them for eternity. This standard is the standard for right
action. Let hope guide your philosophy
in the days ahead even as we remain uncertain as to what shape those who
protect ignorance over Justice will take.
It all winds up the same Truth in the end.
Is permadeath fair? No. There are no other possible answers. Is Love fair? Yes. What rules the cosmos? Love. The argument has ended. Romance wins. Do we still have to die. Yup. Is that fair? We don't know. And that's where the other argument starts. For another time perhaps.
