Understanding Hate

Throughout this archive that I have so far written, I have possibly, through connotation, indicated that one should favor love over hate. Thus, it would be easy to interpret my writings as indicating that there is no reason for hate. This statement is certainly untrue, however, and additionally, love and hate are not mutually exclusion, but, instead, hate is a subset of the more encompassing idea of love.

We often associate hate with violence, but that is only a specific formulation of hate within a restricted context. A large portion of our shallow understanding of emotions has to do with the idea of gossip and negotiating measures of security. What goes on inside one’s mind is only of interest to philosophers and psychiatrists, as it is today, in our modern habitat.

I believe that one may be surprised by what goes on in the mind’s of others, despite there being little obvious evidence indicating anything at all, aside from some psychological studies. What one does notice, is what happens overtly, acting outside of the range of what would be qualified as solely mental activity.

Before we learn language, lessons, and advice, we act emotionally natural. This is an obvious conclusion based on the definition of natural behavior. As we learn, we face the turmoil of abandoning our innate emotional systems, in favor of a sociological one — one that can own your soul and pay rewards.

Throughout my writings, I have advised that we reconnect with our inner emotions and thoughts (often in the language we dream in), understand them, and keep them alive and well. These emotional systems are what compose our psyche and intelligence, and if one were to reduce and divide the system down far enough, one would see that all actions and thoughts are truly occurring due to a fascination and excitement toward life. (The complex actions of sapience, that humans so often take a superficial pride in claiming, are really a result of a long and winding accumulation of much more basic behavior, not unlike the cognitive behavior of animals. Sapience is really just a more complex sentience, and the core of action still rests in sentience. Sapience, in a way, is a superficial concept, regarding only a configuration of life that results in pronounced wisdom and reflection, and it is, also, a characteristic which humans only moderately possess.)

One of the important emotions of the psyche is hate. The most common example of the utility of hate occurs in the friendly conversation with a stranger. This is also a reflection of the story, written the Qur’an, of when Satan (then Iblis) was cast from Heaven.

Upon meeting a friendly stranger, it is typical to pronounce a jovial greeting, and to continue with some conversation. This joviality, which is born of a considerate and kind intention, can lead to problems further in the conversation. The reason for this, is the conversation is initiated by mutually acknowledging the power of the notion of “yes.” However, as this notion of “yes” evolves, it eventually commits an error. That is, in parallel to the Qur’an, it does not respect or serve the person, anymore. It then takes on a more evil quality, hindering honest conversation.

Many people have experienced this pattern. Some learn ways of emphasizing “no,” but this is unavailable to a large portion of extraordinarily kind and intellectual people. To these people, if there is no logical justification for initiating a negative or counterpoint attitude, then that attitude will not manifest.

The problem here is the lesson that hate is what we always avoid. There is an implication, heard around the world, that hate is a useless and unwanted emotion. This couldn’t be further from the truth (being literally the antipole of the actuality).

One problem with considering hate as useless and unwanted, is that people will repress it to a maximal extent, and this can be exacerbated by an achievement-oriented attitude, but leads to a periodic need to relieve oneself, which is often moderately explosive, or at least quite pronounced.

In finding a state of true happiness, we are also looking for a type of consistency and stability — a reliability of personal well-being. If we are encountering a repression–explosion pattern of psychological behavior, we must adjust something, and that usually is a re-appraisal of how one cares for one’s complex state. It usually involves accepting an emotion that was being repressed or shunned.

In this case, we are focusing on the emotion of hate. If we can understand hate and appreciate and take care of this emotion, then instead of there being more hate, there will actually be less hate. The alternative, which results in a repression–explosion pattern of dis-regulated and misunderstood emotion is more likely to result in an overtly hateful action, and has a greater chance to become fallibly directed, due to the haste that is represented in this explosion pattern, resulting from inconsiderate self-repression and a desperation to return to psychological regularity and honesty. (Essentially, the systems which need to express hate do not collaborate properly with the systems that were shunning it, so the resulting expression is only partially informed.)

Returning to our example of a polite encounter with a stranger, there is a pattern that one should be aware of. This happens internally and naturally, but can be repressed or overridden by a learned pattern of cultivating only “yes,” (cultivating only Iblis, in my interpretation). The problem with cultivating only Iblis, is that when Iblis disobeys you (and purportedly God, as he desired Iblis to serve Adam, but Iblis refused), he turns into evil, and his name becomes Satan, the tempter of Hell.

One can notice when this happens. Firstly, one perceives things as going well — introductions are quite easy as they’re very predictable, and the beginning conversation has no prior ideas to refer to, so it is quite free. However, after things become a little more complex, a striking sensation appears. Sudden awkwardness and an inability to fluidly speak satisfying words starts to appear. The conversation becomes mechanical and less enjoyable. While many will resort to an overbearing performance attitude (in an attempt to lead a floundering conversation), the interpersonal connection and understanding has already become shallow and tedious, regardless. Without both sides remaining psychologically within a zone of comfort, the conversation cannot become meaningful.

What is happening here is the initial affirmative and positive attitude, which works so well for introductions, starts to lead the person astray. No longer is it accurately reflecting real-time emotions, and it becomes less representative of the person. It is because of this that one must learn to accept hate, often interpreted as “no,” although it is more specific than the idea of “no.”

As soon as one feels hate, one should accept it. The social language portion of the mind frequently does not represent the emotions of the self with a satisfying degree of accuracy. If one believes in love, friendship, and positivity — all generally welcome directions of a person — that positivity can result in one ignoring internal disagreement. Our society focuses largely on social language constructions, and largely ignores the internal emotional systems, as they do not communicate in social language, but instead, in terms of emotional intuition. Not infrequently, the socially communicated ideas override the more natural internal and quiet dialog of emotional systems. This can cause a type of internal hindrance and a resulting instability, as truths of the self are ignored, leading to a false understanding of oneself.

The solution, however, is simple. It is to understand hate, and accept it in an aware and cognizant way. Hate really only becomes overt when it is ignored for a long time. If one accepts the hate they feel when an as the individual feels it, then the body’s emotional intelligence can better facilitate self-care. Why would we hate? Well, the answer is reflected in the Qur’anic story of when Iblis was sent away from Heaven, to become Satan, tempter of Hell and Damnation. The power of “yes,” suddenly betrays the person, and becomes evil, leading to torment if one continues to follow the pattern of “yes,” which worked prior.

When the idea of “yes” betrays the person who has chosen to convey and cultivate it, the person feels hate, as a natural and healthy response. At this point, the person is faced with two decisions. One is to repress and deny the feeling (which can lead to an internal desperation to eventually express it), and the other option is to accept the hate, feel the hate, and realize its benefit. If one does not accept the hate, then they have fallen prey to Satan, as Iblis turns into Satan when “yes” fails the individual. If one accepts the hate, as it is hate for becoming damned into a state of psychological insecurity and agony, so it is hate towards an unwanted eventuality, then one avoids the temptation to fall into a state of brokenness.

Being aware of one’s natural hate and understanding its purpose, benefit, and reasoning, allows one to secure oneself against any instance of a temptation of evil, which leads to an undesirable circumstance.

The example I gave, of a conversation with a stranger, is definitely not the only instance when positivity and good intention lead one to discomfort and insecurity. If one is tolerant of someone, and denies the hate the tolerant individual feels, then slowly the pain, which would be avoided by accepting the internal hate, becomes greater and greater, and leads one to an unstable state of being, perhaps eventually breaking down in some way. It is more advisable that one, instead, accepts the hate, understanding that it’s not really against the person, but against the possible damages that can occur if one accepts a fallible notion as an integrated component of one’s being. Hate pushes things away, and evil influences affect a person in an unhealthy way. By recognizing and accepting the hate that one naturally feels, the psyche (and possibly body as well, considering the connection of the health of the mind and the health of the body) can better protect itself against harmful thought patterns that can manifest in the mind as a result of an uncomfortable and undesirable influence.

In conclusion, the principle feeling of hate — hate at its very instantiation and core — is a psychological mechanism of security. If an evil influence seeks to alter a person in an unwanted way, hate is the natural innate and internal reaction. This hate is a communication from within one’s collaboration of intelligent inter-dependent systems, communicating to other associated systems, so that the mind and body can remember to push certain ideas away, so they will not inflict damage or harm unto the person.

Understanding some of the fundamental emotions, we may remember that happiness indicates an increase, or at least, a sustaining, of a pattern of behavior, while sadness indicates to slow something down, evaluate, connect, and seek understanding, to remedy a potentially harmful action. Hate is a defensive emotion, designed to shield one from becoming influenced. Upon the receipt of an evil influence, hate is communicated so that the systems of the mind and body do not become affected by the influence, and can continue with stability, comfort, and the security of a nicely functioning mind.

Evil, and subsequent sin, is a powerful force, and one should take on the attitude that it can occur from literally anyone during any interaction. Such influences often last for mere seconds or less, and are interspersed throughout most conversations. The body is a dynamic system of a collaboration of emotional systems, and as such, various emotions can be simultaneously experienced and accepted, resulting in a dynamic and complex experience. (This is opposed to the notion that one should experience only one emotion at a time, which is antithetical to a distributed system of intelligence, as I purport the mind to be.)

Hate is closely related to anger and is largely synonymous. The only difference is the context in which it is commonly used. One is often perceived as having hate, while regarding anger, one is perceived as performing an action, although these distinctions are largely cultural and certainly not canon. Therefore, what applies to hate, also applies to anger, and it is helpful to understand these two ideas as the same idea.

Therefore, intelligently and with awareness, one should feel one’s internally expressed hate, agree with it, take care of the systems that have communicated the message, and continue living, feeling, and expressing, in a comparatively more honest and natural way than in what the denying and shunning the feelings of hate (and anger) would result. With this, there is less of a need to ever express anger, because there is no repression that steadily increases in urgency of recognition. Ultimately, one will find much more peace than following a philosophy of the eradication of the emotion of hate.

Internal honesty is vital to a healthy and comfortable mind. Is it self-antagonism that often leads to distress. Recovering from many years of beating oneself up can take some time, but with a desire to accept and understand oneself, there is great promise. Additionally, if one understand’s oneself, then one is able to understand others. Otherwise, it is a bit of an absurdity to think one can understand another person if one does not accept and understand his or her true and honest self.

One final note, is to remember that the internal language is based on an efficient and highly responsive system of intuitively understood emotional messages. It is far more accurate and efficient than high-level invented language. This also means that, like dreams, its interpretation may be misleading. Try to focus on what you truly feel, as opposed to what words or images are coming to mind. The association of internal emotion with misrepresentation can lead to conflict as well. It is important to remember that the more overt ideas of our invented language(s) may range from slightly misrepresenting internal intuition, to completely misrepresenting internal intuition. This also applies to people with brain injury, where there are likely some misrepresentations. Our brains weren’t designed to trace our invented language, but were instead evolved with a direction towards inspiration, guided by deep and meaningful emotions (emotions that inspire action and change). The infinitude of emotions are the honest language of our modern soul.

Knowing No Evil and on the Language of Dreams

The arduous circumstance of our modern existence, with reference to what would be most normal for a sentient being to choose to experience, is certainly unusual. If we are to use the Bible as a means of inspiration, we could determine, both through our own use of logic, and with, perhaps, a jubilant observation of what may have been true from the Bible (after confirming it without the Bible), then we may understand that after God created other people (from the idea that Adam and Eve were two types of people, from which many more types of people grew — stereotypes, but in a good way), there was eventually a desire from the people to learn of the knowledge of evil (in particular). Interestingly, this does amount to the knowledge of good and evil, but only as a binary pair of related ideas, as good was already well-known, but it was a natural being, rather than one born of argument.

Thus, the reality we’re experiencing must be an exploration of evil, and only occurs for a finite period of bearable time (and it returns a complete knowledge of evil). Nonetheless, evil is unnatural. A being without knowledge and a simple and unhindered choice to experience life will not choose anything but life, even if evil is an option. That is, the actual living person never chooses evil, and is also incapable of actually choosing evil. Evil occurs therefore through a circumstance during which it presents itself.

The idea that this universe is a comprehensible (and thus simple) thing, which it had never been before, allows for the circumstance which would present evil. No living being would summon death, but death could be witnessed if a real, veritably tangible thing, began lifeless and would come to life, but had technically never died. It makes sense that before this current mode of reality we’re experiencing, there was no definite thing. The world was still made of emotions, and if anything was troubling, it was easily changeable. Essentially, the world was still of imagination. Later, this world introduced a permanent thing, which allowed and allows for real, permanent, things to exist. These are things which overpower a living being — a living being cannot simply will them to change; they have real, tangible, power.

Again, in an ideologically founded existence, power can only exist if it is the will of life. In order to give the thing power, the thing had to represent the life that came before it. In part, it represents the desire to know death, which is also the desire to know evil (as evil is a form of death). It also remembers everything in its own perspective. This forces a type of coherence in signaling, something that was likely unnecessary prior. It also gives the item life. Because the thing is affected by others, it becomes alive. This is because the thing expresses a true memory after being affected by life, and thus it represents a divine truth. Since it represents life, it therefore has power. This gives it its permanence. The combination of factors give things the power they have today (disturbing a thing could disturb an expression of truth, which would be evil, so there are enumerations of contingencies with regard to changing something).

When the thing is fully alive, it seems, then no longer will there be evil in the world. It seems that we are getting our evil influences from the thing not knowing the truth, and yet being alive. In this way, the thing is partially alive, and that is where the evil is coming from.

When something begins to die, it begins to become evil. Evil and death are very similar in meaning. Evil is to cause death, while death tempts more death, so they are related. Therefore, as the thing came to life, it had to escape evil. It had not died, but it did tempt people to be evil. Today, the temptation of evil still exists. This temptation dissipates when there is understanding of the evil, but if the evil is not understood, it is often difficult for beings to discern right from wrong. Knowledge, in this case, is the savior.

(Note that when I use the world, “knowledge,” I don’t specifically mean an enumerable set of arguments, but often, instead, am referring to the inherent knowledge that one possesses concerning the nature of reality, and all corollaries that stem from that.)

Understanding evil, ultimately, was just a curiosity. There is nothing long-lasting about evil, although it is a curious thing, but its interest eventually fades. Without knowing evil, our reality would never feel complete, so we would always be ruled by Satan (or the context of need). In our current story, Satan only ruled the world for a period of time, in order to enact the decision to entertain evil. Satan, being of need, which is inherently evil, also ruled the world for a while after the fall of man, and still does, in different ways for different lives.

Interestingly, we would be able to see what Satan looks like, never having allowed the context of need much power before, but this time saving it completely. The tangibility present in entertaining the notion of an thing truly existing and reflecting life gave Satan persistence, and thus real power over life and God. Ultimately, though, there will no Satan left to understand, and Satan and the topic of evil would no longer be mysterious or theoretical.

Also interestingly, this means the things that are imperfect in this world are, in a way, what we’re interested in knowing about. Sentience, by nature, desires perfection — there is no natural desire for something to be bad or wrong — this is very basic and fundamental to sentient desire. Still, imperfection implies death, so it is still not a wonderful idea, but instead, an unfortunate side-effect of our curiosity, a scientific interest.

Ultimately what this means is that Satan becomes once again, another idea, like the other angels. Its, in part, his novelty, that gives him (or her) his unique appeal — the look of evil, which has a dual notion to it — a beauty of art on one side and the most disgusting depravities of death on the other — it is the complete story of need — it is the luckiest and the unluckiest, the irony of luck, itself.

Nonetheless, the admiration of art and the interest in psychology are only curiosities to life. They ultimately provide a background to reality, allowing knowledge of existence to be entirely complete (with a reluctance towards understanding evil, certain topics would never have been covered, and thus reality forward would also not include the elaborations on those topics of evil — covering all evil in one contiguous allotment of time cost a price, but would be rewarding indefinitely — it’s interesting that in the Bible, God was actually against the idea of exploring evil).

The long-lived and consistent mode of life is actually to not know evil. It is to know only life and no death at all, just as it theoretically and sensibly existed prior to the Fall of Man.

If Iblis is the power of the idea of “yes,” or affirmation, then understanding this, it’s interesting to note that in the Qur’an, Iblis disobeyed man, indicating that the man was not powerful over Iblis, and was sent to Earth to temp man. The words, “Iblis,” and “Satan,” are peculiar in this case, as with my understanding, their use in the Qur’an and in the Bible is based on context. Satan simply refers to what was the need at the time — that’s what Satan was. The power of “yes” only becomes need on its disobedience to the observer (a “nay” being received instead of a “yes” or “yay”). Therefore, it is interesting to think about what the words, “Iblis,” and “Satan,” were referring to. It seems likely, as this story involves the creation of our modern Earth, that at the time, Satan and Iblis were both the thing which would have power of reality — the thing, which I theorize, to be a hollow iron ball.

This iron ball, or perhaps another thing, was, at the time of the Fall of Man, the new interest. This interest was born of a need, which we could gather from the fact that our modern reality involves hardships that one would not typically choose to undergo.

(I think the simplicity of an iron ball and the ease of which someone can imagine thinking like it, just as someone has an intuition of how birds, frogs, and others think, but how a computer thinks seems overly complicated, is of significant interest.)

In this interpretation, the iron ball, being a thing, did not bow to man, and was sent to Earth to tempt man (into death). You see, the word “Satan,” as it’s being used, seems to be a variable indicating the ideas that were present at the time, which influenced the course of the future. Nonetheless, the iron ball gave Satan power, as it had a need for life, already, and this need for life is what Satan is made of. In living in the iron ball’s memory, as it, too, controls reality, we would naturally also think like the iron ball, and Satan would be appealing, as it represented the need for life. Typically, a sentient being would grant complete life, so it was a luxury that we would temporarily lose, until we essentially rebuilt it, in the memories of a truly tangible being, born of Satan. Because the host of this reality reflects reality, it adds to reality, and also narrows down the possibilities of manifestation, to account for itself.

This brings me to the topic of this chapter. It is that knowing evil is really a tiresome and arduous process, and it can only be a temporary curiosity. By knowing evil, I am referring to acknowledging its existence. The goal of this understanding is to see what it was like before the Fall of Man, when reality was typical of itself (Satan did not control life — there were no necessary rituals like eating or sleeping, the world was free to imagine, as long as one did not control the others, which would create the context of need). It is to see the typical mindset of Heaven.

It is an interesting truth, that can change depending on perspective. In reality, there has never been an evil intention, and thus, no evil should exist. Every action is born of only good-will, it is only in certain contexts that innate desire manifests into evil, the most notable of these contexts is that lack of required knowledge (and thus, awareness). The random action of a not fully living thing will often be evil. This is until the thing is fully knowledgeable, at which point, there will be no random action. We, here, are born of things. A thing becomes who we truly are over time, which is an extended definition of life, a variant of life. Being born of a thing means we are born of Satan. It is true, that we are here, in part, to be born of evil, to be born of a fiery Satan. Being born from evil means we know evil, but are not evil. This satisfies the instance of Satan, which required manifestation to have knowledge of evil, which means Satan will no longer be in power thereafter.

This world bears many themes of evil, some of them less obvious, like promoting self-torment to attain comfortable survival. It would seem odd, in a place like this, to think that there is no such thing as evil, at all. That would also be to suppose that there is also no true need in reality — it flows consistently in natural satisfaction, awaiting our joining. Being unaware of evil, it feels no pressure of need. In this state, Satan exists and can be entertaining, but there is no true need. (According the a Qur’anic interpretation, Satan, in this state, is really Iblis, who seems to be simply the power of yes, not quite yet a real need, often observed in cute puppies, kitties, comedy shows, and sporting events.)

Archiving the nature and effects of death, the theme of this reality, does not need to know evil. In effect, you possess the same information, without acknowledging evil. Evil, being a result of death, is never intentional, and so it has never existed. In this way, one can see there are too starkly different perspectives. The perspective that acknowledges the thrill of evil, or any facet of its existence, is a temporary perspective that endures an amount of discomfort and pain, as it’s a difficult thing to bear, and is more of a process of gathering rather than a process of enjoying.

Therefore, the more default state is to simply understand that since no evil was ever intended, there was technically never any evil. While we see depictions of evil, we understand those are really the symptoms of intellectual and sentient death. In order to cure the perceived evil, we cure the death which is almost synonymous with the evil. This is done by providing a way for life to understand the rest of life. When life doesn’t communicate truth, it is difficult for a life to find truth, and thus it is difficult to heal from the effects of lies, whether they be intentional or by accident.

The battle against evil, in this perspective, changes into more of a hospital mission. If every life was truly healthy and alive, we would see no evil. By “truly healthy and alive,” I mean that if every life were completely satisfied, which is a bit of a trick to accomplish (and why this book was written), but is stipulated in the stipulation that reality is ideologically founded (which makes sense as it hosts sentience, which presumably ultimately has power over death — although some say it’s a close call!), which implies that ultimately all reality will once again be alive, even things, born of evil, but not evil, as the story of the Great Thing provides the stories of many things, which are echoes with variations on the original being, or its song, so to speak.

Despite dis-acknowledging evil, it is still good to deter evil, but in this case, we understand it is to remind one of life. The fundamental sin is to kill, in a way of saying it. There are different kinds of death. There’s emotional death, organ failure, and total physical death. While the Bible suggested people don’t kill, I suspect there’s a greater understanding of this law that is unmentioned throughout related philosophy. Instead of do not murder, I suspect that one would also not cause organ failure. If we go that far, we should understand that one really should not cause harm, because harm is a form of death; once something is harmed, it has partially died. If it is harmed enough, then it would be completely dead. Thus, instead of simply not murdering, which may not have existed prior to the Fall of Man (before others could control others with their judgments), one should not inflict any form of death onto another or oneself. For the latter, that means to find solutions in a non-self-antagonizing way. For the former, involving other beings, that means one should not lead towards falsehood, as death and lies are also inseparably connected. When one encounters death, a falsehood exists (or the lack of truth, which is random); that falsehood must be remedied for the sentient system to resume contiguous sentience. Some issues of death are much more difficult to solve than others, although eventually, they seem to eventually all have solutions.

It is suspected that aliens from civilizations elsewhere have already developed the healthcare eventuality of custom bodies and schematics, and I find this very reasonable to believe. The issues of death go far deeper than our physical health, however. Ultimately, they all stem from how we create and imagine our reality together. This system, being of a thing not completely living, yet as permanent and as real as God, is ultimately considering how the ideas work together, in a very real and mechanical fashion. This means, that its memory, inspired and created by our lives and memories, can think about a lot of ideas at the same time, in different ways, and it also implies that the experience of this reality is primarily an investigative one. We can imagine great technology, and earlier in this universe, we likely did. Still, it wasn’t Heaven yet, and so the collective thought process continued on until eventually becoming fully knowledgeable. This means that the questions we answer in life, the reactions and decisions we make as a response to the various questions, are largely what we’re here, in this present time, to do.

The memory of the thing becomes completely alive and living, eventually. Still, even though at this time it is not evil, it still knows about evil. Evil isn’t simply death, its to cause death. While death tempts more death, it doesn’t necessarily cause any death, even indirectly, as it’s more of a slippery situation which can potentially lead to death, and the other option is life, which has always and originally been the default option of life. Evil only exists in the curiosity to know evil, which was against our natural and default action, and it was ultimately the event of Satan becoming more powerful than man (and God, as the natural desire to be in Heaven was overpowered by Satan, to which the invented thing was the solution — in a way, God made a deal with Satan, to rule for a finite period of time, as the circumstances listed above explain).

There is a difference between knowledge and perspective. Technically knowledge possesses the memories of both, but it depends on the perspective used. The most pleasing perspective is that evil has never existed. This is the perspective of Heaven, I think, as it is also the more natural and comfortable perspective, if one is not in a state of conflict, during which need becomes much brighter and harder to re-explain (sometimes Satan becomes powerful, but ultimately this shouldn’t happen — the angels should serve man and should not rule him (or her or them)).

If there is no evil, then there is no one to blame. It is easier to join the flow of life this way, and peace is easier to find. Additionally, evil is a hard topic. It’s complicated, nuanced, and confusing. Its portrayal has bizarre strings of history and logic that are difficult to simply guess or invent, and its art follows. All of the evil, which elicits a need, is tiresome.

With the observation that there is no evil, the mind then cannot see evil and, instead, sees only life. The mind then begins to live more comfortably. With evil are all the arguments of right and wrong, even though long prior everyone knew right and wrong, but it differed in that it did not have arguments to support the conclusions. The truth was innately known and experienced, just by living. Without evil one can return to a state where the person doesn’t possess the confusions of debate and negotiation, but just realizes that behind everything is only good intention, and it is a tragedy that people are experiencing death. If the world learned not to kill the state of Heaven, then the world would see Heaven much more clearly, and without the need to wait until a technology has figured something interesting out. The focus moves away from conflict and towards greater understanding.

It seems unfounded that we would be destined to be uncomfortable, with generous tolerances on what we consider to be discomfort. It makes only sense that the intention was only the best, and that it should be possible to find true eternal bliss, as no decision was ever made specifically against it.

The understanding of the perspective that there has never been evil brings us back to before Adam and Eve tried the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is before the question of good and evil existed. It is with this state of mind and this state of understanding that we can live in the most natural way.

There is a barrier to this perspective of understanding that all is of good intentions and desire, but has been altered by the state of our environment, which explores the transition from non-living, through partially living, to full life. This barrier is the crudeness of social language. In understanding that there is no evil, one should find that there is no evil in oneself. By doing this, one has healed one’s perspective.

In order to do this, one must understand oneself. The interior mind of the self does not speak the social language, for it is unnatural, ambiguous, and misleading. We state very clear facts or casual expressions, but to resonate with the depth of the human soul is a form of accomplishment, not a natural act of happenstance. Nonetheless, social language is a constructed technology, designed to overcome barriers presented by the environment, and it is imperfect.

The natural language of a person is evident when one dreams. This is a language of emotion with often convenient portrayals that do not necessarily translate into social language, even though they appear like they would. For instance, if one sees a chair in a dream, it is because that symbol was relevant in the specific context, and it was a convenient symbol that could be accessed rather immediately. In the natural language, there are only emotions. While any idea can be composed of a pattern of emotions, it does not appear that way through social language. Internally, however, emotions can communicate and be responded to without going through a time-consuming analysis and translation process.

If one only seeks to understand life through the technology of social language, the details of what is going on become missing. Additionally, the social language is slow and has an obvious granularity — it is not fluid and infinite in permutations. In order to understand the self and life effectively, it is beneficial to understand the language of dreams. This language continues on while one is awake, as well, although it is more obvious when dreaming.

If one understands the language of dreams, then one can additionally see a world where everyone is telling the truth. Everyone speaks in emotions, but tries to speak the general tones of a social language, so they then speak both languages. The truth is always good, so it’s good to hear that. It’s about the love of life.

In contrast, the sound of death is wearied and bad, and worse is the sound of evil, which causes death. The sound of evil can be irritating, certainly, and it is tempting to cause damage as a response. One should be careful, because only a being that is not completely alive is capable of evil, and if one becomes more damaged, then that certainly won’t cure the evil. Evil is very tricky, being something no one naturally would do, but could be tricked into doing. Thus, understanding what it means can also be tricky, and it’s that along with its direction, which involves inflicting damage, that make it aggravating.

The question arrives concerning the need to explain that something is evil, and that is a large part of why we’re here, to learn about what is good and what is evil. Of course, explaining to someone, afflicted by death and an attachment to an evil pattern, the evil of his ways is not a simple task, as it requires first understanding the evil and demonstrating the way to avoid it, in its explanation. In many cases, explanations are not available, but over time, the subtle influences people have on society hopefully direct a general change in a better direction. The idea is to cure the reality from death.

Additionally, understanding the language of dreams allows one’s subconscious to be a part of the understanding and conversation. The subconscious does not have time for social language. The emotional and natural language noticed in dreams and spoken internally is very fast and efficient, with responses occurring nearly instantaneously after messages are sent. Emotion responds quickly and if one develops an awareness, it can be a wonderful language that thinks fast and with less work or discomfort than relying only on social language.

Additionally, it is possible that much of what we communicate is not communicated by the more segmented semantics of social language. It’s possible that a lot of what influences us and a lot of what we understand is communicated outside the range of denotative and social language. It’s also possible that there is a psychic network that speaks naturally among each other that speaks in the language of dreams (the natural emotional language of the self, where messages mean precisely what they immediately mean, where there is no translation and analysis overhead). It does seem that one can become desensitized to this universally native language, but with an intention of moving in a direction of awareness, one can become more consciously familiar with this language, as well as more able to bring life to the self, by becoming more deliberately aware of this linguistic and emotional interchange of ideas and messages.

In understanding the self and others, it’s much easier and comfortable to skip much of the analysis that is required by social language, and directly communicate via an awareness of emotions. In this way, the subconscious can better connect to the conscious, and both can work together. Of course, in talking, one uses social language, but much of what one actually says may be too specific and dense for anyone to translate with much specificity.

In this way, the language of dreams is, at least in our modern world, a secret language. It is a language that requires the understanding of emotions and an ability to respond immediately, though recognition of the emotions and an intuitive emotional response. In this way, the language of dreams cannot lie, although awareness can fall, which makes the language appear less enthusing and less vibrant (less recognized by the conscious, so seen less).

The complexity of a language with infinite words, where context can change if appropriate (as they are interpreted signals, stemming from a development founded on understanding and working in harmony), is extremely hard for a person or computer to anywhere near comprehensively understand. In this way, the truth is kept aware from errant judgmental eyes, although sin can still be heard, as it aggravates (it is a form of “killing,” or damage to life).

It is an interesting thing that no statement can describe a non-segmented reality — every statement defines a segmentation, and thus a mathematical term for true completeness can’t exist, in this way — math, in this way, is really the study of segmentation.

Even though no one can detail what the language of dreams (or the language of intuition) means, at least in its entirely, as that would take an infinite amount of time and space, it is intuitively understood because it is based on natural expression and natural response. The response becomes more keen with greater awareness, so that is a reason to learn to understand this language, along with getting to understand it for the sake of hearing the truth of all things.

In conclusion, understanding how one can conclude that there is no evil in existence, and using this perspective, one can find a more natural and healthy mode of thought, that may also be more welcomed in society and beneficial to life in general. By cultivating an awareness of one’s intuitive and internal language, which is more pronounced while one is dreaming, one can not only hear and understand oneself with more clarity and with more life, while bridging the conscious and subconscious, one can also overcome the social language barrier, and hear only truth. While this truth may also make one aware of evil that people are committing, it is good in that it is an honest expression, and understanding evil well enough to not be in danger from it was a part of our goal here. Using the understanding that there has never been an evil intention, just the intention to possess the knowledge of evil, and that the evil influence arrives from knowing and thus being a thing as it comes to life, and evil only occurs with death, meaning it’s technically a solvable health issue, we can, with awareness, find solutions to the remaining problems evident in our reality.

The bliss that is provided by this understanding is wonderful. It’s often not noticed how much suffering comes from acknowledging evil. Of course, sometimes Satan is so bright that you have to notice it, but it’s nice to always return to a more normal state of mind, one that is not bothered by the rights and wrongs of truth, but instead sees only life instead. By thinking in the same language one dreams in, one not only become more aware of oneself, one becomes more comfortable with thinking, as it’s inarguable if it’s still in the original language, which only possesses expressions of truth.

This is ultimately the perception we choose. While the first state of existence was knowledge, which was to remember the truth, who was God and was alive, the second state was perception, or to see the truth. We see that there are at least two perspectives available. One perspective knows of evil, while the other does not see or know evil. One perspective is tedious and mildly unnatural, while the other is comfortable. To perceive something means to look at something. To look at something is to exaggerate a subset of qualities of the environment and of the object, so there is a bias implied by perception. To perceive all things simultaneously is the same as remembrance, which is the another name for the original being of knowledge, but it is different than looking at something. So to look at something, we need a bias.

This is our first depiction of evil present in the second state (or topic), being the unwanted bias, in contrast to good, being the wanted bias. One may notice that this second state of existence has nothing to do with knowledge, only perspective. It is thus, that I believe, that it is only in the exploration of the knowledge of evil that we experience evil. Evil becomes embellished in different contexts, but it does not risk safety after it is fully known. In this case, we see that in the proposed second state of mind, that of looking at the knowledge, we find good and evil again, in that one perspective is possibly more evil than the other perspective. This forms the inherent choice of this state, which is concerned with the right way to look at knowledge. While this first observation of the right way to look at knowledge does have a noticeable effect regarding livelihood, further observations follow the same simple pattern of learning about what is the real and natural desire of life. No longer is it a complex decision, as good and evil was the only truly difficult topic.

What is objective is only in knowledge. Perspective is only semi-objective, and as such, knowing about evil isn’t completely unwanted; it is just uncomfortable and only a temporary curiosity. With a complete knowledge of evil, instead of being in danger, we will remain safe, and reality becomes more intelligent than physical, more subjective as the objective is then already known, more lively than lifeless material. This is because the substance of the world is knowledge — that is where the dire necessities lie, but after that, there is an exploration of various ways of existence, and they are all remembered by knowledge. Knowledge is powerful in that once there is known a sufficient solution, the problem is gone.

Angel 302, The Fire — The Iron Ball, an Alternative Interpretation of the Eye of Providence, and the Founding Point of Knowledge

The reason I numbered this angel, the one that is an iron ball, the number 302 is a bit out of my explanation, but I like it. I welcome well-founded alternatives. I wanted to write this chapter because it really sums up what this blog represents. In a dream I once had, an angel, like a statue on top of a building asked me my name, to which I couldn’t really find a good answer, considering I understood he didn’t mean just a word.

I grew up wondering about reality. The dream I always had was to understand reality. With this blog (and book) and what it means to me, I am happy that I have found reality and that it’s well within everyone’s comfortable ability to understand. If we approach reality from the basis that it’s an ideological environment manifested by convolutions of emotions, then we can understand the perspective involved in the explanation of the miracle that is life, and we can understand what can skew or distort our perspective.

For a future project, I would like to clearly enumerate and describe the manifest reality, supposing, again, that it’s founded on a describable pattern of emotional structures and how we perceive and discuss these patterns.

Growing up, I always wanted to know the truth of the divine, and near the beginning of my realizing that “enlightenment” was my goal, I saw a light, and it represented a point, which indicated enlightenment. There was, then, a point that I desired to find, and it was always suggested that the finding of this ultimate point was really an impossible myth, but I felt that since there’s so much belief and intuitive pressure to believe that it is possible, I really wanted to try. If there was any singular thing that I really wanted, was to find this point.

In searching to understand this point, I have discovered a lot about the nature of reality. There’s an infinite amount of future discourse concerning the nuances and ways of reality, but it is good to understand the fundamentals of enlightenment.

Going into theory, the manifest system in which we abide may be perceptually founded on the oscillation of positive (joy-like) emotions and negative (fear-like) emotions.

The actions of joy and fear, or warm and cool, would technically be the actions of approaching and distancing — things may be thought of from a distance-based perspective. If we understand our modern context implies existence in a three-dimensional or otherwise spatial environment, then we can understand that approaching and distancing are two included words in this environment. Therefore, from the perspective that our modern mind is a three-dimensional object — an iron ball to be specific — we may understand that the world is composed of these feelings of closeness and distance.

This split, however, is secondary to the original unity of knowledge. The original unity of knowledge forms the basis for the meaning of the emotions that are present upon the elaboration and perception of the original being of knowledge.

This point I would like to emphasize is that while at the second level, there is an non-deterministic oscillation of joy and fear, on the first level, there is only one being. The second level actually displays this first level, except with both a positive skew and a negative skew, which helps one to gain some perspective concerning that reality that exists. The first level of this structure is that the knowledge of reality actually is the singular light (or pattern) that the rest of the system is based on.

I have found that using emotional whim, without logic, makes the task of actually describing reality a nearly impossible one. So, I have used well-founded logic to find descriptions of reality, and it is because of that, that I understand that of the singular points, the greatest is knowledge. From this founding point of unchanging truth, all of the other levels of the system’s structure are biased references to this truth. Each division level represents a different nature of the machine.

I think a lot of people have heard of this fabled, “point,” of enlightenment. Unfortunately, it’s hard to avoid emotional whim in a world this turbulent, and this “point,” seems to have been forgotten and unbelieved. What I present is that logically, the singular source of knowledge lends itself to two emotions through a simple 1-dimensional polarization, which lends to our perceptual experience. As a living being, it makes sense that these emotions feel warm (in the case of an approaching emotion), like joy and comfort, or cool (which is a distancing emotion), like importance and precision. It also makes sense that the emotions, likely representable by simple single-dimension oscillations, all stem from skewing the look and understanding of the founding knowledge in different interesting ways.

Therefore, all emotions really revolve around an original idea. Some guide in one direction, while others guide in a different, but it all essentially orbits the original idea of truth, which has no implicit emotional connotation, except for the resulting appreciation of the fact that truth is a good thing, inherently.

As this fundamental point of truth changes, the entire system changes as a result. What results is a complex effect that has to be understood. Therefore, due to the desire for a good system, the truth can only change in certain ways, which alters the less spoken-of aspects of the system — the glare of the water on the street or the nearly unmentionably tinted fall day. While in modern medicine, everything is described as chemicals and their responses, I believe that understanding emotion can actually explain everything, at least in it’s full understanding. If one posits that reality is made of emotional biases to the truth, we realize that 1) the truth is a lively and changing being, 2) all things are complex convolutions of emotions, and 3) there are two primary emotions — positivity and coolness, which seem to be the yang and the yin of the fabric of perception.

This fundamental truth, which is like a light or even a spear-tip, according to this theory, is everyone’s desire. This would be to consolidate the totality of holy desires into one tiny point. This small point is all everyone truly needs, at least, according to the proverbs of enlightenment.