Man is neither good nor evil. To acknowledge that man has a nature is to rob him of the freedom to own himself. Humanity has no nature; we are our consolidated experiences and our experiences are the sums of our actions, our actions the sum of our thoughts, or the lack of it. Our thoughts are the offspring of our beliefs and we are bound to cling to ourselves because everything’s just the sum of everything else.
Mankind should veer away from transcendental dependence and rely solely on the immanent features of existence. Beyond this world is a void, nothing more. Man should veer away from God, the idea of God, or anything related to God, proximate or remote, because God is bondage, God is a large stone set upon our meager shoulders, God is the ultimate limitation.
Once there was a child that murdered his fetus sibling with a carving knife. Do we say that the child was innately evil? If so, do we then put it upon the shoulders of the child the consequences of what he really is? Or do we exalt unto the heavens, not only the soul of the dead but also the fate of the living? If we say that he was innately good, where is its manifestation? If we further belabor this faulty argument to conclude that he was born good and that he had been made bad by the life he had led, then we are coasting muddy waters for, one, there had never been proof to the innate goodness of the child to begin with. Secondly it only shows that a good nature is, thus, irrelevant because it is easily overcome by the so called “evils of the world.”
Realizing that nothing exists beyond the world, man should reckon all of his energy into utilizing existence and into helping others do the same. That is, one must be a god to others as much as one is a god unto one’s self. Thus actions for the metamorphosis of lesser mortals are accurate only when they are within the threshold of reason; that is, when the person can no longer divine the pitiful suffering of which one is prey.
The value one puts into humanity shall be constrained only to such an extent that one becomes its god in knowledge, in ideas, in mercy. The history of class struggle is a stream that must continue to flow until it runs dry for even a morsel of logic subscribes us to the point that economic classes are not only lame but also illogical in its rawest form. The waves of class antagonism must not be stopped until King Canute concedes that his humanity, until the more fortunate class, the bourgeoisie, the wealthy, the blissful sons of god are crucified in Calvary where they are exalted like gods and martyrs, and thieves. But that’s just what they really are, thieves, stealers of power and life. The economic hierarchy must be destroyed, lords and feudal who live sinister lives in the bliss of serendipity and affinity should be reduced to meager subhuman entities until their passion for fame and fortune is outcast by a passion to life. This is necessary to achieve a state of temporal equivocation, this should be the prime objective of humanity, its raison d’être. The lower class, greater in number that they are, should mobilize with outstretched hands this objective, this dream, the causa. It is easier for mankind to submit themselves to expertise than to mere pride. This is why the collective mobilization of the lower class should be technocratic. By doing this, we lift out the obscurity of reason, which I account to the life-long class struggle between men. True, the world has been reduced to a mere spheroid battle ground for institutionalized idiocies and unjust policies because one is rich and the other is not. But this persistent reduction is brought about by the turbulence of illogicality, raison in absencia. The dominant perception that superiority is classified by fortune or one’s economic ranking has caused mankind to readily submit to human farces and follies. States are governed by elite but dimwitted human beings whose actions are shaped by class biases and inferior ruminations.
When the persistence of economic class antagonism is defeated, we should behold the age of reason. We must now submit ourselves to the collective genius. A state, a nation, the people must be governed by this collective genius. It must destroy the edifices of the bitter yesteryears by first destroying the chains that bondage us into it; the laws and the prevalent social stigmas such as religion and education. For the longest time, mankind has enslaved itself to these pre-imposed notions.
First, that we must hopscotch our way through a decent life with academic stones and blocks. Man has been made to attend liturgical classes that only inoculate the students with the workings of this flagrantly faulty system in sheer desire that they be absorbed in it. This is not education. Education has no rooms or fences. Education is the constant battle to seek one’s own purpose regardless of time or venue. Even an illiterate wanderer who knows his path is more educated than a lawyer who does not own himself.
And what of the laws? The law speaks of this and that, of thou shalls and thou shall nots, but have you ever stepped out of the shadow it has casted in posterity to question, why and why not? The law has no heart for necessary demons. But if we want a free life, these demons are necessary. One must be free to act as far as his freedom requires in order to own the chance of being a god to others and to himself. For instance, there is bondage in laws on monogamy as in most laws. Mandates on monogamy condone flagrant lies on faithfulness. Would one rather hold on to the belief that love is real just because the other one is bound by law to sustain a monogamous relationship? Do you call it faithfulness? An obligation is no genus of faithfulness. That’s what these illogical provisions promote, obligated faithfulness, not love.
Of sins and tradition. The god in oneself must muster the strength to depart from traditional values in pure and holy spitefulness. Antiquity betrays logic. A celestial mind does not fret the old, for what is old but feeble and delicate?
What I regard as sinful is an act that veers away from morality when the actor claims he is a religious follower of the Judeo-Christian doctrine. It is far better to let go of one’s belief that to cling to them and act against them. A faithless murderer is far more acceptable than a Christian robber.
We must be Dionysian in rage, in passion, in life. Because although life has no inherent value, this is as far as it ever goes.