Preface
Nothing is real
Writers do not become
writers, they simply realize one day that they are writers. I realized it in 1989, at age 16. I began my writing career
as a freelance contributor. I wrote live music reviews and creative nonfiction,
mostly narrative essays. At the time, all my literary idols were
transcendentalists. I admired many of the authors personally and I loved their
writing style. Transcendentalism validated my belief system and reassured me
that a purpose for all life existed. Through study and observation I learned
that the human “self” is invariably linked to nature. I learned that social
institutions such as organized religion and the political process ultimately
corrupt the individual. Human beings are designed to be self-reliant and
autonomous, thereby able to form true community. Like most philosophical
movements, transcendentalism is a big word that describes a simple idea. Humans
have knowledge about themselves and their universe that transcends or goes
beyond the 5 senses (what we can see, hear, taste, touch and feel). In other
words, “matter” is not all that matters.
Transcendentalists were outspoken critics of
unconscious conformity in contemporary society. Ralph Waldo Emerson said it
best, as he urged everyone to “enjoy an original relation to the universe”. My
favorite transcendental authors are Henry David Thoreau, Nathaniel Hawthorne,
Walt Whitman and Herman Melville. As a young writer, I wanted to someday number
among them. But at age 16, I was insolent. I was intelligent, but I was also inexperienced
and slightly naïve. Like most young writers I had more questions than answers.
I was restless and eager to be published. I wanted to make a permanent
impression of words on paper. I considered myself a naturalist, but my editors
classified me as postmodern. Eventually, I realized my style was existential. So
in addition to literary realism, which I used to describe how society, heredity
and environment influenced human behavior, I also began to study existential
philosophy.
Philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard and
Friedrich Nietzsche laid the groundwork for the intellectual movement known as
existentialism in the mid-19th century, by dismantling objectivity
and embracing skepticism of social norms. Based on their conclusions, my belief
is that subjectivity is the path to objective truth and vice versa – the nexus
of which forms a “composite” truth. The first step on this path is an
understanding of the distinction. I feel that the line between objective and subjective
truth has been intentionally obscured by an overall displacement of the
archetype by later generations of existential philosophers. As a result,
writers such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Samuel Beckett drew heavily
from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche rather than their contemporaries. These post-war
existentialists brought a new sense of subjectivity, but also a sense of
hopelessness which greatly influenced thinkers, writers and artists of that era.
For example, Karl Barth’s fideist approach to
theology and lifestyle ironically spawned irreverence for reason and sparked
the rise of subjectivity. Post World War
II colonialism greatly contributed to the idea that having an objectively
superior lifestyle or belief is impossible. As Nietzsche himself said, “There
are no facts, only interpretations”. This idea was expanded by anti-foundationalist
philosophers Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Derrida, who re-examined the fundamentals
of knowledge. They argued that rationality was not as clearly defined as modernists
and rationalists believed. In addition to philosophers, most psychologists
began to exhibit a cognitive bias toward existence, in relation to our default
setting of “truth bias”. Existentialism
is generally considered to be a study in pursuit of meaning in existence and
its value to the individual. Unlike other fields of philosophy, existentialism
does not treat the individual as a concept, but values individual subjectivity
over objectivity. As a result, questions regarding the meaning of life and
subjective experience are seen by existentialists as being of the highest importance,
above all other philosophical questions.
The
main proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence; i.e. a
being exists before its existence has meaning. Thus allowing us to define
ourselves through a process of subjectification. Existentialism undermines epistemology and is the flipside of
metaphysics which contends that essence precedes existence. Existentialism is sometimes associated with anxiety, a sense of fear
and the awareness of death. It emphasizes behavior, freedom and decision making
as fundamental to human existence. This theory is in sharp contrast with both
rationalist tradition and positivism. Existentialists argue against descriptions
of humans as predominantly rational beings who view reality as solely an object
of knowledge. For example, I refuse to view humanity as something that can be
regulated by rationalist principles, as we are primarily defined in terms of
behavior.
This
theory rejects rationalist definitions of being. It also rejects essence as the
most common feature that everything in existence has in common. Contemporary
existentialists tend to view human beings as subjects in an indifferent,
objective and often ambiguous universe in which meaning is not provided by the
natural order; but is created by the actions and interpretations of human
beings. Although there are common tendencies among existentialists, there are
also major differences and disagreements among them. Some existentialists
refuse to affiliate with - or even accept the validity of the term. As a
result, by the late 20th century, a philosophic movement known as
postmodernism emerged. It emphasized a skeptical interpretation of culture, often
associated with deconstruction. The term postmodern rapidly gained popularity
in literature, music, art, philosophy, economics, and architecture. The term
has been applied to several movements in reaction to modernism and is typically
marked by a revival of historical elements and techniques. The book you are now
reading was originally a postmodern essay, entitled The Observing Ego. While writing it, I read a quote about postmodernism
made by Albert Arnold Gore.
Dear
Albert stated that postmodernism was a perfect combination of nihilism and
narcissism (which is ironic, because politicians are usually in denial about
both concepts). I immediately took offense to that statement. However, to be
honest I wasn’t really offended, but that was my only motivation for criticism
at that time. I thought to myself, “the nerve of this guy”. No wonder so many
people think he’s a pompous jerk. I doubt that anyone really cares about his
opinion on this either way. Al Gore’s job titles and pedigree don’t impress me.
He conceded the 2000 “election” because he was following orders. He was told to
step aside, so that’s exactly what he did. But in the grand scheme, it doesn’t
really matter; it was all part of a larger agenda. It wasn’t really an “election”,
it never really is. It’s always more of an “appointment”. Some people are aware
of this dichotomy, yet it doesn’t seem to bother them. This could be the nihilism
Gore was referring to, but it isn’t. Gore believes anarchists such as myself to
be nihilistic because he has a misunderstanding of anarchism. In any case,
neither he nor any other “pezzonovante” has accurately defined postmodernism as
a philosophical movement. Other than a rejection of modernism (which is
sometimes ambiguous), it is a rejection of conservative ideology; and the idea
of traditional socioeconomics and politics based on reason and objectivity is
no longer plausible - because those patterns of social behavior no longer
exist. In addition, objectivity and rationale are sometimes diametrically
opposed. Objective views are primarily influenced by physical law and mathematic
absolutes whereas a rationale can easily proceed from inaccurate information or
false assumptions. Either way, those who don’t understand how “rational
objectivity” is supposed to function (or those who decide to reject it) will
presume they exist at the center of the universe. This presumption may be part
of the narcissism that Gore referred to, but that doesn’t matter. It is not
necessary to embrace nothingness if you decide to reject everything, especially
because there is no such thing as nothing.
A
new universe (or multiverse) can be discovered once you forget everything you
know about the one in which you currently exist. In other words, nothing is
real. We are not bound to this plane of being, corporeally or otherwise. In
addition, impossibility cannot exist. Anything that supposedly cannot be
done has simply not been done yet. Martial
artists will tell you that a flow of kinetic energy (known as Chi) is used to
change the density in boards and bricks in order to break them, the same way high
pressure storm systems can change the density of a brick wall allowing a block
of wood to smash though it. It’s not that unusual. These things happen all the
time. Just as the time of year in which we are conceived and born affects our
patterns of behavior and thought process. So why then do most people stubbornly
reject Alchemy, Reiki, Energy Healing, Feng-Shui, Shamanism, Naturopathy and Ancient
Astrology – yet easily accept Religion, Science and New Age beliefs? It’s
because we have been conditioned to believe that natural practices are not sound.
We
have been led astray from the divine human purpose. To quote Jordan Maxwell, “I
don’t know what God is, but I do know what it isn’t”. No one can ever tell you exactly
who you are or who you are supposed to be. That is for you alone to determine.
I am often asked if I believe in God. My answer is yes; but what I believe will
always differ from what you believe, even if only slightly. No two systems of
belief can be completely identical, but they can share characteristics. This is
part of the Gnosis. Human beings are divine creatures with a sacred origin. We
all follow a path that we continually create for ourselves; which is also predetermined
by something we have absolutely no control over. That seems to be a
contradiction, but it isn’t. Everything that happens is meant to happen in some
way, shape or form. I constantly hear smarty-pants intellectuals complain about
how people annoyingly use the phrase “everything happens for a reason” yet
cannot articulately explain what is meant by that. But guess what? They don’t have to explain it. The phrase is
self-explanatory.
If
you disagree, I understand. But no one owes you an explanation for human
existence and purpose. You can blame that on whatever you want, or give credit
where you think it’s due, but life goes on, with or without your participation;
active or passive. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as “the
end of the world”. The “world” is abstract and therefore has no beginning or
end. We merely exist as a part of this abstraction for a miniscule fraction of
time; because time is infinite. Time is relative to energy and mass. That’s why
there is no time in outer space. As a result, mass particles do not merely exist
in space-time, they create space-time. In other words, time and space
are emergent properties of a “gravitational” field; existing simultaneously as
both the result and origin of all matter in existence. One day, you will cease
to inhabit your human form and pass away from this world.
On
that day, everything you thought you knew will become meaningless. Everything
you believed and possessed will become worthless. “The entire world” is
something you leave behind, in favor of what comes next. Do I believe in life
after death? Yes; but not in this world, not of this consciousness and not
related to this element of being. In order to fully understand this way of
thinking, you must rise above concepts such as good and evil or even right and
wrong. Ethic will always eclipse morality. All around us, all the time, there
is negative and positive energy. Neither can exist without the other and we
could not exist without both. In our search for answers, we often uncover more questions.
The “how” is sometimes easy to understand; the “why” on the other hand, is usually
a bit more complicated. The following six monologues each contain several
narrative forms. They are not arranged in chronological order. They contain no
perception of time.
They are descriptive and
satirical. They are mythic and autobiographical. They are contextual and
metaphoric. To review, discuss and share opinions on the book or to access the online
footnotes, please visit skippulley.com
