Mark Passio's Journey to the Law of Freedom (per an interview with Webre)

I was clued in to an excellent interview with Mark Passio made by Alfred Labremont Webre.  I was interested in hearing what he had to say, as many who seem to be interested in Truth as Such have been rather dazzled by this interview, and especially with Mr. Passio's views per se.  I wanted to see for myself if he could elaborate on some views which would account for this fame meaningfully, if it was merely down to charisma or rhetoric, or if it was perhaps something else.  Most importantly I wanted to hear what he'd say about morality.

I have encountered Satanism, of the same sort as did Passio, and in a similar way.  I didn't go online or public about it, and didn't officially join.  Like him, I was exploring the logic of refuting religious control paradigms and taking some definitive stand outside of their rhetoric and narrative.  In the final analysis, my moral essence was not compatible with the consistent application of Satanic dogma, and vice versa.  Mr. Passio had a similar parting of ways.

It turns out that the structure of Satanism's view of the world, and many of its contents (per La Vey), are consistent with the degraded morality of "humanity at large", and so Satanic texts act as a key for choosing to take advantage of these facts about the human world rather than be taken advantage of within that construct.  This is presented as pragmatic within the scope of normal human existence, because it is defined as a consistent method of being on the "winning" side of the zero-sum game of human Satanic sociocultural existence.  It is presented also as being embedded within a proper and factual understanding of human nature as a form of animal nature, as a form of nature per se.  Mark seems to agree with this idea in essence, although he would probably not judge humanity's participation in the fulfillment of its Satanic applications over the millenia as harshly as would I.  He is more generous to these spiritually dead robots, for some reason, than I am.  I am no Satanist, however, neither officially nor secretly.  So I am sure it is down to his being sweeter on people than me, being perhaps because he is more endomorphic and more gregarious (partly facetious here).

But, this is actually where I part ways with Passio, and others who think there is a "real chance" of "human awakening" in such a way as to merit serious anticipation being achievable. No, I think the real reason for his generosity is that he wants to play it safe and give the benefit of the doubt as long as possible.  I feel I've been doing that long enough.  Most people I encounter are carbon copies of the same unthinking, psychopathically immoral robots I've seen my whole life.  He has encountered the same beings, and to me there is no need to give the benefit of the doubt, as I see no need for doubt.  They manifest what they are by their willful ignorance, their complicity in affairs around them which are patently wrong, and their cowardice such that they don't even ask themselves "why so many kids on milk cartons"?  In fact, there aren't any on them any more.  Now they should be asking why not?  Kids suddenly stop disappearing?  Why?  Why were they disappearing in such large numbers before?   I'll have more to say on this in the addendum. 

La Vey goes into detail not only about the social Darwinism implicit in Satanism as he portrayed it, but he also goes in to detail about dominance and submission on a moral, gross psychological level, as key.  This fits into his paradigms about energy manipulation, especially via sexual means (although he takes it into an abusive modality through the magical methodologies of dominance over other minds without moral restraints).  Mark acknowledges these points.

So far so good.  He also relates very accurately the arrogance and contempt which are characteristic of these elite scum.  I call them that because the are elite with respect to the scum upon which they depend for some of their perverse luxuries, which is what elites classically do in this world, what a coincidence. They, the elite scum (or elite of the immoral and amoral scum) and those under them, are dripping with it.  They really do have this idea as I'll quote it directly from the mind of one with whom I had telepathic contact (which was thankfully brief and uninvolved) :  "Yes, now you get it".  I asked him does he do this simply because others let him, and simply because he can and wants to.  This is another way that they state the "natural law", which is that the Strongest and Fittest rise to the top.  

As an anectdotal note, I had this encounter in Hong Kong, during the full moon of October 31st, when all the public was milling around like ants as usual, and I noticed that the "elites" were in their usual places and on their typical perches, and I had the freedom to amble around and explore as I awaited a VISA issuance.  I explored quite a lot...  I was not unnoticed by these beings... and many took inquisitive and sometimes hostile stances toward my consciousness of them, and just my consciousness generally.  I heard people openly inquiring whether I was such and so reincarnated (or perhaps they thought that I thought that about myself, I don't know.  I didn't and still don't, so it must have been them being either serious and/or deluded).  I noticed that I could pick up on thoughts especially easy during this time, and was able to detect an overt intention to set me up in some sort of "false flag sting" so I had to make myself scarce in some places for tactical reasons.  It was just like a segment from the movie They Live.  The moon was full, and was full of energy, and in one instance it tried to suggest I stare into it (!), and I refused to submit.  Later, as I was relating some information pertaining to the "Law of Freedom" to borrow a term from Passio, I was detectably hated for that by a lower level elite turnkey in a suit.  They really are "all one" in their own way, and to be not one of them, or one of their peasants, is to be "something else".  And since they are being the "we are all one" falseness of the New Age, and also simply because their nonsense IS false, it is clear that I am not one with any of them.  And since the New Age espouses an idea which would, if accepted, put me in the control matrix with the Illuminists, then they are complicit in that evil venture, even if only by default for being such spiritually ignorant fools.  This was one of my many adventures, in Hong Kong, and elsewhere, which all taken together have given me plenty of room to say some of the things I like to say about "they" and "them", and little patience for people who ask me, rhetorically and not sincerely, the question "who are they?"  Back to the Passio interview!

He's spot on about the fact that Satanism (in its evil, feudal essence) is a secret cabal that has long ruled the earth, but has had to cloak itself under garbs of "Goodness".

I don't know if he ever goes into why they have had to "go underground", even as little as they have, but I'll suggest the reason from my vantage.  The REASON they has had to do this is because REAL RELIGIONS which were arrayed against this evil were once brought upon the earth by Light Emissaries, such as Zartosht, Mani, and others, to include possibly a Jesus which has been hidden from us, but who really existed, the books available about him are not available through Christianity, a religion propped up to HIDE the REAL Jesus.  They learned their lessons from the previous Emissaries.  These Leaders and their influence, and the groups which inevitably formed in league with their Spririt, had to be removed permanently from the public scene.  Since this was hard to do when the public scene was so blatantly OPPOSITE these beings and what they brought forth, then the evil elites decided to window dresss the public to itself by falsifying it to appear "as if" a world of Light and Decency, and to do this they had to take all the narratives of the Emissaries of Light and falsify them into that public context of deception.  This they would like to maintain, or else dispense with, but they will do either one as is seen as most efficient for them.  They seem to like how it is going so far, so I don't think they are as interested in "coming out" and reforming the public into a blatantly evil-assed society like before as maybe Passio thinks.  I'm not sure if he thinks this.  But yes, if they had no problems with infiltration by Light Beings, then they WOULD probably just revert to overt depravity and hellish evil everywhere and on tap, right on the street.  They really do in some places, if you look at it "with an enlightened eye".

These Emissaries were scouts, energy suppliers, and warriors who were sent to prepare this place for the Battle which is coming, and it won't be anything but a Battle.  There is NO PEACEFUL CONTINUATION of this world, and one side cannot coexist in peace with the other.  But certainly the majority of human beings are like fully programmable organic robots who will not ever truly rebel against their masters...

Satanism is CORRECT to call them "the dead", for they are.  Just as we don't throw away Truth when it IS TRUE in any other areas, we don't do that here, and Passio does not throw the Truth out with the lies and reprehensible.  That's good and consistent!  Passio "passes" a test here.  A deluded person would go the other extreme and make people not complicit and claim they were "merely deceived" which is absolute rubbish.

This is about 40 minutes in, and we then phase into a discussion of the progress, and ability to make progress, of the evil elites.  I would call them the elites of the evil masses for these masses are evil, or morally debased, both to those with whose morality they are sufficiently aligned to be considered the lowest strata of raw materiel, and also from the point of view of Moral Beings who rightly despise them along with their masters.

For the next 30 minutes he explains the position he takes on whether or not the world can overcome its abusive elites and become a place of goodness and feasible order, or whether the elites of the evil masses will "turn the corner" on their final plans.  (Again, I call the masses evil, just of a submissive polarity vis-a-vis THEIR elites).  That's a 50/50 proposition to Mr. Passio.  I see it as if the only thing the elites are really trying to do is make public what is simply already a fact, but occult for the last couple thousand years or so (Since Confucius, Jesus, etc), then really they already have what they want, they just wan to polish it up to its most dazzling form.  That is a bonus, a cherry on the top.  They already have their ice cream sundae...

But then he goes in the question of "outer shocks".  He addresses the idea that natural shocks, either from the galactic center, or in his view most likely from the sun, will happen first before any alien intervention.  And he broaches a logic that suggests that alien entities would have no moral ground on which to stand for this situation of exposure, since humanity has for the most part accepted their condition.  I think he has made the case that this dynamic is partly a function of just how transparent the evil controllers have been, but it is also a function, I would say (and I think he'd agree) of just how morally opaque "the people" are.

He suggests rightly that a complete chaos will be the best chance people have to reassert into new and ordered societies the contents of their own innate moral propensities, and that this has just as much meaning as any alien intervention scenario.

I see that if an alien intervention were to take place, it would be orderly, and likely in a form that negotiated the exposure of the evil rulers in such a way that those who continue to submit to it are morally culpable for their own decision, and those who would not are allowed to have advocates who will come to their aid in becoming free from that malignity.  It wouldn't be some big arrival of any "fleets" until this separation had already been established...

As to the Dark and Light Occultists who are behind the current world orders, it is really not a fertile ground for constructive conclusions.  But he seems to be interested in saying that most of our views on the original authorities who set up American national institutions are figures who, like their contexts, need to be properly deconstructed from the myths which currently ensconce them as either in a good or, reactively, in a bad light.

He makes a good point about Thomas Paine around minute 77, especially vis-a-vis his contemporaries and their modern treatment.  Following this, the empirical discussion of the underpinnings of modern events as proceeding from Illuminist agendas through concrete actions for the last 3-400 years is cogent. He goes into a discussion of radical freedom as a central idea which must figure into any concept of forming an improvement on human sociopolitical conditions as they stand since the Founding Fathers made their attempt with our constitution.  I would say that naturally, however, as things stand right now, there is no likely outcome along the lines of peaceful settlement of these issues through a constitutional convention. Passio goes further and suggests that govermentally managed aspects of society are better managed by natural human social interactions.

I'd say that this is not an encouraging prospect, given the manifested "human nature" under current conditions, and in fact most of his history.  There must not be just "one" human nature.  I reassert my own "motto", if you will:  WE ARE NOT ALL ONE.

There is not "one human nature".  There are various natures, manifested in human, and other, bodies.  That's the problem with this situation.  So "moral law" must be established for a society, and it must be followed BY THE NATURE of the people in that society.  It would seem that this "free will" clause is quite crucial to the coherence of Passio's thinking on how humans would constructively proceed in the light of social interactions with rules and laws.

He says that there must be a law which is already in place in nature (in "creation"), and which humans either submit to or do not.  He then fills in this blank notion with a specific notion of a "Law of Freedom".  I don't think that this is a law of THIS universe, as this world is too fully a case where it is not, and given the level of sapience humans currently manifest, there is no reason why the UNIVERSAL LAW OF FREEDOM did not step in through some mechanism to support MORAL HUMANS and other MORAL BEINGS on this planet.  If it did, it must have been in a way that I do not perceive.

Perhaps, in some way, it is happening, but it is not happening clearly enough, nor expediently enough, for most beings who DO acknowledge this "Law of Freedom" for Moral Beings to BE Moral, and Be so FREELY.  But he seems more optimistic about THIS universe than am I.  I'll take the progress on this planet as a sign of the universe in which it is embedded.  It is therefore not likely that the universe here enforces a Moral Law, but is rather an OUTLAW of a higher moral universe.  I think this is not a trivial distinction.

But I think that to a degree, I'd rather cohabit a planetary space with people who think like Mark Passio, than with people who think like David Rockefeller.




ADDENDUM (Concerning the Burden of Proof, Benefit of the Doubt, Weight of Evidence, and Prerogatives of Conscience, all vis-a-vis the fact of the pervasive immorality and amorality of human beings, and with a view to some interesting conclusions)

If the cognitive and moral dissonance is just too much for them, then why, frankly, must I be forced to abide with such creatures everywhere I go on this planet and be forced to call them "brother"?  I draw the line here, when evidence is sufficient and someone looks the other way.  I DON'T ACCEPT THEM AS FELLOW MEN.  If my contempt for them is to be doubted for being unfair, that isn't because there is no reason to give me the benefit of the doubt instead of them.  I've done the research, I've dug through the chaos of lies and disinformation.  I've set aside other pursuits and paths for this, and I've let go of the social bribes and threats that tried to derail me.  I'm not going to now look at people who haven't and just assume there is a good person in there just clawing to get out.   I've been insulted, mocked, attacked, backstabbed, threatened, robbed, and otherwise insidiously derailed from even what is commonly thought to be a fair path through the world by its own supposed standards, even the doubled standards.  I mean, are these people really that cowardly?  They are, or they'd come out and tell the people that they own them by divine right, and do as they please (as was the practice in various places, such as ancient Assyria and Babylon).  You can be rest assured that these cowards would gladly till the fields for such sadistic filth as ruled Ninevah.

Well, I'm not throwing in my lot with them at all.  I'm going to err the other direction, if that is what it takes to defend my own rights.  I won't be dragged down by cowards who are just as likely to stab me in the back and turn against me on "that fateful day" as not.  No.  I say yes to people with the courage to put their live's energies, their focus, their time, their treasure and sacred honor into this struggle for freedom from lies and the evil oppression these cowardly lies thinly veil over a willfully ignorant populace of sheeple.  I have standard to uphold also, and they don't come cheap, and they don't tolerate nonsense and bullshit.  That's how I got to awaken in spite of all the rest of them.  Now, in spite of their swamp nearly drowing me in all kinds of evil traps and tricks and wicked dangers I'm supposed to think they are my loving spiritual family?  PROVE IT.

So concerning Satanism, if this method of aggrandizement and its codification into a religious ethic is "dark and false", then so is the paradigm of humanity in general, upon whose moral malaise it depends.  This leaves us with people who, by and large, are either psychopathic, or else submissive TO psychopaths.  Most if not all cultural elements act as "filters" in just the same polarity as does Satanism (and even conventional religions, to be fully consistent).  All of these control paradigms seek to polarize people into abusers and abused.  It also fits society as a whole into the paradigm of the abusive elite, who seek a middle section of psychopaths submissive to them, and able to be steered by them, just as they, in turn, will predictably and reliably steer the lesser psychopaths and submissives on every level.  Mark seems to clearly get this also, though he says he "at least tries" to see people in a better light, whereas Satanists go another way and err on the side of self-aggrandizement.  I don't myself wish to err in any direction, and have a less flattering perspective on people "at large" than does Passio, though my unwillingness to see them in a better light is simply my being fair on the balance of evidence and calling something as I see it, without prejudice against people, yet also not against my own judgment based on long experience, thorough study and investigation, much thought and contemplation, hard proof enough in my book, and my conscience is clean.  Sometimes, I would aver, Truth is not kind or flattering to our views, or to people, or to our views of people.  I wish we lived in a world where this didn't have to be a sticking point, of how we address people "in general", but the very fact that all this evil madness is going on, and in a way that is directly sustained by the moral apathy and willful ignorance of  people, is what makes it a point which sticks so compellingly, at least for me.

I want to continue on this point, as I think this is part of what makes movement toward Truth so weak in people and in society.  Who are we, who are sincere, kidding if not ourselves?  I spent decades talking with people in all sorts of venues and situations.  I've noticed that, no matter what the evidence, in 99.5% of cases if a person finds a point of logic or a certain fact inconsistent with their own beliefs, the facts and logic must go!  The only way this tends to be not the case is if they can see something happening directly to them or their loved ones or personal property or their personal freedom, right now and directly.  Even then, many of them seem like they'd let it happen if their beliefs said they should.  They have a default setting in them that lets them be programmed in this way. They will not resist this unless they have absolutely no other choice, and that means they'll walk right into an execution of themselves and their families as long as they can carry on with the delusions they accept by default, as  long as in the mean time this is not directly told to them, and they are fed, and have entertainment, etc.

In other words, they only "wake up" to the impending stampede of their destruction when it is directly upon them, and if you wake them up any sooner than that, they can't hear the coming thunder, they only see you, and hate you for waking them from their sleep.  Their minds can't hear what they won't pay attention to hear, and they want to sleep damn it, they want, as Mark says it, "they're comfort". They want the illusion of safety, because they are too cowardly to face the real danger that is there, they are just not willing to face it.  And instead, they are happy to watch movies, listen to music, go to events, send their children off to war, fight wars with superior weapons and forces against weak countries (on false pretenses), treat their favorite meat market as holy (church), and so forth.  They believe what is made easier for them, so they don't have to face the impending abattoir.  So whoever pities them, bothers them, associates with them, dwells with them, identifies with them, loves them and keeps them, is doomed to share their fate.  That is so stupid, frankly.

I don't say that Mark goes that far, but I'm not going to give humanity a 50/50 chance of waking up... That implies several things about humanity, even if true, and none of them are good or make sense. 1) It implies that they are about half-willing to make the effort.  That's really not going to cut it.  2) It implies that about half the people are willing to wake up.  Really?  Not my experience.  3) It may imply that it's a coin toss that the number who will wake up will be sufficient to turn around the whole affair.  I don't see that.   If the number right now is not enough, it won't ever be enough.  If it were only about 1 in 10 who awakened, then it is clear, at this rate, that the other 9 will gladly sell him out to keep their illusion under the narrative that Big Brother will provide them, in whatever form, and their consciences will be assuaged.  But if we were to go further and say half were awakened?  That'd mean the other half were so incredibly dense and evil that there would be nothing short of a war between these two halves.  That is going to be mighty destructive, because even the two halves of the world which are both demonstrably evil are already about to blow each other up.  And you can't be less commited to Truth than a liar is commited to his lie, can you?  You shouldn't be.  Especially not if half the world is already yours.  So that wouldn't end well either.  This is not a pretty picture no matter what, but it is way uglier than that.  I'd say less than .1% can or will ever awaken to Truth.  That is to say , that few are not default deniers of Truth.

So I think that this is really the case, and that most in the movements toward Truth do not want to accept it, and are falling into the trap of a false narrative about waking up or saving the world from itself, when in fact it doesn't look like we are able to even save ourselves from it!  I can only imagine that this is a process involving Divine Protection already, but only for those who willingly awaken, or there is no such thing, and this is one hell of an evil laboratory with one hell of a bunch of really absurd lab specimens in it.  And in that case, the reason this goes on like this is that they want to collect as much information in their studies as possible.  I'm almost sorry to say that, but think about it carefully, and way the alternative you prefer to believe.  Otherwise, you have to believe something even more strange, which is that these "rulers of earth" have moral credibility in what they are carrying on with, that they know best, and you best get with the program and "hope" you are "fit for survival".  But if you wanted to believe that, and you looked at the odds, you shouldn't get your hopes up for more than a lab rat existence.  I think  it is almost interesting as an experiment in itself to see who will believe what, and if they come to believe any of these three (or other) possibilities, then "what will they do about it?"  The Truth is not kind if it is this thorny is it?  Well, you better "stick to your guns" regardless, and mine tell me most people are lab rats and that they'll never change, and I've got better things to do than believe lab rats will "evolve" into Moral Beings.


To look at it the way it is playing out, it is not only consistent with social Darwinism, but that is what we are looking at in real time: Darwinian selection processes.  Maybe they are artificial, but neither natural nor Divine laws have stopped it from being this way so far, and human "laws" are a farcical thing to mention in that context.   At the very least we can draw two significant conclusions which are not mutually incompatible.

1) The universe is a battleground between beings who take advantage of each other, and sometimes one gets subjugated to the point of being at the bottom layer of a dung heap of dog-eat-dog hierarchies.

2) The universe pits these beings against those who feel they are Morally Superior to those dog-eat-dog beings and think that they can have a society among themselves which is better by far to live in, and therefore they protest and resist willfully joining and participating in the societies formed in 1).

It is clear that beings who are members of 1) by nature will either submit directly or with a provision to ascend in the hierarchy by some set of rules.  It is probably mostly a "gladitorial" affair, whether by mean so violence or talent shows, etc.  I think one generally either submits directly or dies fighting against it, or conquers it, but the latter requires a considerable amount of force, does it not?

Beings in 2) are a somewhat strange group, because they seem to be in denial of reality, if we are to take 1) to be the norm in the universe.  How are we to see that it is not?  Well, interesting point, isn't it?  From whence came these Morally Righteous abstainers from the Machiavellian feast?

Well, it could be (falsely) argued that they are merely delusional groups, subgroups of people within competing dung heap hierarchies, who just have a peculiar delusion that a "Better Existence" is possible and desirable, one less violent, more fair, and decent for all.   It seems that many who ascend the dung heap hierarchy want this sort of thing for themselves as far as possible, especially once they've gotten spoiled by being "at the top".  Many settle for a tier that they reach, and want it stable.  They don't want to seek more, and they don't want others below them to either.  Perhaps that is where they get their inspiration for rules of etiquette, ethics, protocols, etc?  Is it because outside forces in an even larger layer of dog-eat-dog dung heaps, on a larger scale, pressure them into this "internal submission to fair and stable arrangements for living"?

I think it is fair to suspect this, if we think that nothing short of that could inspire beings in 1) to do such a thing.

But beings in 2) seem to desire such a thing anyway.  They are not like the lower rung of beings in 1), who are basically weaklings and petty classes of that category, who cannot rise for simply that reason.  The people in that class are like their upper classes, who also only cooperate because the risks of doing otherwise outweigh the rewards.  They would prefer that sort of life anyway.  Cooperation and fairness are simultaneously the ideal for them, not a pragmatic reaction to a lack of worthwhile opportunities to rip each other off.

I say this is not the basic quality in human beings, and not by a long shot.  I supply as evidence the world as it is, and as it has been, since recorded history began.  Research it and weep, I say.

But 2) does seem to truly exist.  Even against these ugly odds, pockets of humanity seemed to exist which by and large did sustain, at least as a cultural ideal, the idea of Goodness being a value in itself and not merely a pragmatic response to lose-lose conflicts.  There were seen to be no gains but fair gains, and no gain was fair if it was zero sum.  They avoided zero sum conflicts as a matter of standard ethical propriety, good morality and also as etiquette.  Their religions and cultures reflected this.  Let's just say this is true, since if it weren't, we just have bleakness to discuss.

So these people existed, and still exist, but only in small groups by comparison to the groups around them.  Over time their nations, sub-national societies, and even the traces of their practices were abolished, their ways destroyed and misrepresented in history, their people and their heritage wiped out.  Time and again there is evidence in history which at least suggests this.

How did they come to exist?  Is there an anomalous gene or meme or something else that made it come into existence?  Or is it as Mark Passio says, the "Law of Freedom" which this universe actually expresses?  It doesn't express almost at all here on earth except as hypocrisy.  In fact, so far, it looks like dog-eat-dog is the Law, Rex Talionis, as the Satanists aver.

It seems that said, I'm willing to agree that Rex Talionis is what is taking place on this earth, and also throughout the universe.  But what if somewhere, somehow, type 2) beings were the norm, and became quite strong, and all knew what they were up against?  What if that happened?  Rex Talionis of course would apply to them, too.  They must be stronger than the type 1) realms around them, or most certainly go under, for they are not even satisfied being at the bottom, least warlike level of type 1) societies.  They have ideals to care about...  Things like "truth" as such (Truth), and many others.  There is no way they'd be given any breaks by the conquering type 1) beings, who will tear out each others' throats at the first safe opportunity.  They'd jump all over peaceful and gentle type 2) beings, unless they thought it would be too much of a risk.

Wherever type 1) beings interact, it is Rex Talionis, with whomever they interact.  It is no different if they run across type 2) beings, whom they'll hate even more than type 1) because type 2) wouldn't even fit into their societies even on a hypothetical merger.  They don't form truces with each other.  One conquers the other, and that's it.  This much, I think, should be clear to anyone who understands the terms that I'm using, and the events in this world.  If not, I don't think axiomatic foundations which are extended by construction through logical formulae will be of any further assistance either.  In topics like this, that is only useful as an added measure of clarification for those who understand what ordinary language can express.

So that means, in the end, Rex Talionis is the Law of the Universe.  The only question is this:  Is the universe also a domain in which Freedom and its moral correlates are favored?  So far, we have no evidence of that.  But if we are moral beings of the type 2) nature, we won't let that deter us from being true to ourselves, and acting accordingly.  Christ, I believe firmly, would say this.

So I conclude that the Righteous, who are always Christed, type 2) beings (who are really the Original, and Only True Beings), if we are at a physical disadvantage, at least we must never lose our fighting spirit, and must keep our morale, for by that we are who we are, and will live out our lives with integrity.  Worse than the perhaps inevitable physical death, is the Spiritual Death, from which we perish before the body even stops living, and as a result of which it is not even worth preserving anyway.

Heraclitus versus the World Thing (A Coherent Rambling on This Doomed Chaos)

A noun is a person a place or a thing, but a "thing" is sometimes a place where persons discuss things, which may be places, objects, or events. Either way, where there is an intersection of persons and matters, there are "things" that keep coming up, and "things" that keep happening in response to them.

"The thing was the assembly of the free men of a country, province or a hundred (hundare/härad/herred). There were consequently hierarchies of things, so that the local things were represented at the higher-level thing, for a province or land. At the thing, disputes were solved and political decisions were made. The place for the thing was often also the place for public religious rites and for commerce."

A key "thing" to note about these things (both kinds, the archaic and the modern) is that they involve the embedding of persons into matter, a thick, opaque stuff which makes deception of all kinds possible, so that there are "things which happened" and yet which cannot be demonstrated first hand to some who must now "deal with them".  There have to be witnesses, evidence, stories told, memorized laws and rules brought up, VIPs and other experts to weigh in, opinions to be arrayed against shadows.

This is something which evolved into existence when men, with stunted minds bereft of spiritual power, which could not see beyond their senses, became surrounded by things, and had to get testimony from others about events "second hand", and couldn't even be sure that the testimony they received had any authenticity.  Shadows compounding upon shadows was the world, and every manner of feud and hostility was the rule, not the exception.

This condition was, in a relative way at least, contrasted by the tamer world of the civil life where dominance and submission hierarchies were well-established by codes of law and their castes of interpreters and keepers. This was the distinct difference of lifestyle between walled city-states and their standing armies versus tribal groups outside of them.  The Germanic tribes and their "things" versus the Roman Empire and its bureaucracies indicate a sharp contrast in this way. They Scythians versus the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians in another example, and the Mongolians and Manchurians versus the Han is yet another.

Looking at the relative sizes of populations in those days, their technology, and their customs, it seems interesting to compare their social psychologies AS TRIBES and AS CITY STATES if they could be made analogous to similar sizes of populations in the modern world. Who would be the modern equivalent to an ancient tribe which ran free and resisted the laws of a city state, answering only to their own customs and traditions, and the hierarchies of their own honorable members?

If only we could take a chronoscopic investigation directly into the past and see these things as they really unfolded, so much we could learn!

If there is any reason I'd cavort with an alien, it would be to compare its library of human history with the stories passed on to us in our own. I bet there would a HUGE disparity, and in any event the actual events as they unfolded would be profoundly interesting.  The spying activities of the NSA look petty compared to the value of looking with a birds-eye view (or an alien historian's eye view) backwards through time, seeing every action and every "thing" in its true facticity.  Every atrocity, every invention, every skirmish, every legend, every king, every pauper, every migration, and every... ALIEN INTERVENTION... what a treat.  I bet the disparity between what happened and what we now "think" happened could be at least somewhat indicated by what might be revealed if what were kept stored in secret vaults by the power brokers of the world were let out into the light of public scrutiny.

Up until today, and ever since its inception, the world is a chaos in the darkness, ruled from deeper darkness, and those within it are imprisoned and keep each other prisoners in ignorance, fixating their confused minds upon hypnotic illusions which are showcased as holy writ of fact, presented by "authorities" who deem the freethinking of those chattel they control as nothing but a crime, enforcing their will on others and calling it "right".

The world is an evil "thing", conceived in an evil mind, in which most are but notions it has bidden into existence to mock the few it could not control.

If I will not bow to this "thing", did it invent my insubordination?  If so, how could I be to blame, being simply one of this evil mind's many guises?  If to blame, how by it?  If not, then what an absurdity to encounter its judment! If not, then how could I have been from its domain in the first place?  If not then from where?  If not below it, then above it!

If a man were "of a tribe", would he oppose his own chief arbitrarily?  Would he oppose his own family, his own heritage, simply because of a whim?  He'd be a madman, or he'd be fool.  Or he'd be a man greater than them all, and worthiest to be king over them.  But if they wouldn't prefer him, then this alone says nothing to us.  Perhaps it is really they who are unworthy of HIM.

As Aristotle says to us, some men do not belong in society as we know it because they are either like beasts and cannot be ruled by reason and morality, or they are like gods and cannot be reduced to the bestial immorality of what passes for humanity.  Either way, they are set aside in his discussions of ethics.

It is what is divine in men that make them prefer to live alone among the beasts who are without pretense rather than to live with men who are dishonest hypocrites.  Maybe this is a sufficient definition of religiosity:  to be averse to evil men.  There comes a time in human worlds when animals flee human society no more than do saner men.

Who can say whether or not it wouldn't be better?  It is a controversial thing, and the matter is not so transparent as current facts and witnesses permit us to have it so as to reach a clear determination.  We need the Great Apocalypse for this!  "When evil reaches its apex, only then will I manifest to bring it to an end".   This was the most Ancient Promise of the Lightbringer!  When will His Light flash across this clay and expose its forms as they truly are and bring this horrid "thing" to an End!?

NOW!!  NOW!! NOW!!  For when it happens, it WILL BE "NOW"!  An Eternal Now peeling away the temporal realms of evil errors like a thunder that shatters the foundations of the universe, utterly erasing them from the tableaux of existence!

Until then, it comes in flashes of lightning, by which only those who insist on their own sight can be properly guided, not the train of fools who merely feel their way in the darkness of the relative.  they go up and down paths of ignorance, thinking the same path is two and thinking that two very different paths are the same!

To see with your own eyes is to see a thing most clearly, even if you are the blindest man in the world!  Only a fool takes it on the claims of another.  Be witness to your OWN Truth!

The Spirit with Two Left Hands

So many now like to say "there is much confusion" and then add "let me explain it for you".

They inevitably come in two forms, which have something deep in common:

1) All is one, but "the one" has two (or more) "modes" of manifestation which "evolve" from unity to multiplicity back to unity again.  This is usually implied to be some sort of spiritual learning adventure.

2) All is one, but it is not a learning adventure, and it has descended into a plurality of two, one of which leads to destruction, and one of which leads to salvation, but the only way to avoid the one and reach the other is by (insert conditions).  This usually requires some sort of "obedience" and "self-abnegation".

There are other modes of either of these two major forms, but in fact they reduce well enough into these for the sake of what I have to "explain" by logical contrast and comparison.

• ~First the comparison:

These are really not two different ways of approaching the cosmos spiritually, but in fact are the same, because both require a yielding of any innate and sovereign capacity to evaluate what is Good and evil.  One pretends to have the answers "embedded" in its matrix, waiting for each soul to "discover" the secret which leads it "to the next level" in its evolution.  But in all varieties of this general form of spirituality which I've encountered, except a few which still yet have their own peculiar deformities, this "way" of spirituality denudes a Sovereign Spirit of its very essence, commanding it to "find itself deficient" and "in need of instruction so as to evolve".

The "other path" does the same thing, but just shoves it in your face outright, and says "this way or hell".  We presume that a steeper learning curve in the way first listed here is equivalent to a path to hell in the second one, and that the question of an eternity in either case is sufficient to cause them to merge into an identity "at the asymptote" of the limiting case in both, which is suffering for eternity without recourse to any remedy, a form of hell if there ever was one.  The first "way" claims it must be due to a really stubborn and stupid spiritual attitude, but fails to mention that this is the necessary counterpoint to anyone "wise enough" to go up the other steep grade to an eternity of superliminal spiritual awesomeness, asymptotic to the highest throne in heaven in the second "way" of spirituality in the two listed above (in their admittedly stereotyped forms as I've sketched them rudely here).

In the second form the same applies, but usually with only one incarnation in which to fulfill them, and all gradations of the curves of learning and evolution are somehow packed into one lifetime...

Sometimes, as in Zoroastrianism, there is a sense that the single lifetime is enough for its own battles, but that they play a role in larger and larger battles between the alternative states, so that larger and larger souls are involved as macroscopic coordinates to the microscopic, and vice versa, by whatever arcane calculus that must require to preserve, in each case, the SOVEREIGN RIGHT of each soul to determine its own disposition in the struggle which is ostensibly taking place concerning its eternal fate (or destiny).

One suspects various parties in such ancient religions held different notions of what "an incarnation" involved, how many were involved, and what the metaphysics of such doctrines required in order to sustain the theology of the religion they held to be True or "true enough" for humans to understand.

In all events, some sense of personal responsibility is preserved, but in most cases there is a subtle (or blatant) requirement that the Spiritual Individual must cede their sense of entitlement to judge right and wrong from within the compass of their own Consciences.  It is quite as if it is more about THIS than anything else whatsoever, looking at all the creeds I've come across.

"OBEY OR BE A SHMUCK", or something to that effect.

So it stands to reason that the maximum and most epitomal insight all these "initiations" present, whatever their orientation or supposed chirality (left, right, up, down, etc), is that YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW to LET SOMEONE BETTER THAN YOU TELL YOU WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG AND HOW TO PROCEED... You're input may be involved somehow, even required, but this is the sufficient result to be deemed "In the Good Club".  Point of fact, as I will demonstrate, the essential features of these two "orientations" are identical in content, and differentiable only in the particularities of their superficial forms.  Therefore, they are not chiral with respect to each other, and are not properly called "differently handed" paths.  The human hand is chiral with respect to its own mirror image, but these modes of religion are not chiral with respect to each other.  Their gloves fit each other with only a little stretching...

• ~Comparison complete, now for a bit of critique:

So take all those positions in this one essence, and construe them in this manner.  Now I will call that the "path of obedience".  Since in this world the path of obedience is considered the "right way" to go, and it is a "right hand path", it is perhaps better to call both of these by that name, whatever their outer form or explicit dogmas, so that we can muster them all together (whether they seem happy with this common assignment or not).  In any event, by their own precepts they should be humble and not fuss about their bedfellows, since they are all "brothers in obedience".  So, be obedient together.  They can't, for some reason, but that is another matter.

The TRUE "Left Hand Path" must be quite different from any of the pretenders out there, since it cannot be the mere reversal of obedience.  Being "disobedient" surely isn't the essence of the Truth, as it may be better to obey a wise man than merely disobey a fool. Sometimes obedience is better than nothing when the instructions are wise, and sometimes disobedience is foolish, because the master is a fool, but his instructions are still wise.

Better to "obey wisdom" if anything, in either case.  Let the person speaking it do as he pleases. But let the wisdom reflected upon his words be heard, for it echoed from some Wise Origin at some point.  But surely, it is the Wisdom Within which has heard Its Own call echoed even in these unseemly forms, and so again we return to the "Truth Within".

Since all the paths which demand obedience give this fact short shrift and yet at the same time require it to be a true fact within a listener in order to be well-received and obeyed, at least according to their logic, therefore it is clear that they are caught in a contradiction.  However they try to justify their contradiction, they cannot, anymore than a robber can justify taking your property on the basis that if it can leave your possession and come into his, it was really his all along, or its "belonging" to you would have prevented it. This is a REAL example of chirality, and it is clear that Good can never really "shake hands" with its mirror image, evil, nor share its superficial properties insofar as they truly express an inner essence.  This proves also that human bodies are in essence NOT CHIRAL, because they can relate as if having a common essence, and in fact they do not, for Good and evil men's bodies can "shake hands", while their spirits can NEVER be in agreement.  (See Footnote at Bottom for more LOGIC)

But if you give your obedience to someone on the PRESUMPTION that they are your better, then is this not in some way a proof that they are?  For perhaps in this bargain they "got the better" of you...

But if it is on the basis that "you ought to know better that: you ought to know it is better to obey, and so you ought to obey" then this something with which we can apply logic and determine if there is any validity to the argument.

If you know better in this matter, and your knowledge tells you they are not worthy of your obedience (for whatever reasons in detail), then this precludes their assumption, which is that you know better, or else it precludes their other assumption, which is that it is better to obey (them). In either case, not both of their premises is true, so their argument is not sound (because the facts which are its basis are not all true).

To put it another way, if their argument is valid, then we can draw the following conclusions:

a) If I know better, then I know better (including cases when I know better about their other premise and their conclusion.

b) If I know better whether or not they know better than me generally, then I know better in this case itself, specifically.  So in this, it is my own knowing, and knowing better than them or anyone else, which decides the case for me.

IN EITHER CASE, the basis of my decision is my own knowing better, and then in either case, why should I not continue applying this ability on a case by case basis and determine matters for myself?  After all, if I find that someone knows better than me how to build a house, this means I can use that amount of knowledge I have to determine that to also determine many other things which have parallel standards of knowledge by which to gain sufficient understanding of the matters involved so as to make a parallel determination as to whether I'm talking to an expert of a pretender.  Why not become an expert myself, then?  Especially if it is on a matter so important as to determine my ETERNAL FATE.

In case a) 

I already have that knowledge in greater degree than the fools who beset me.  

In case b) 

I have the ability to acquire it based on the fact that know enough about what it takes to know whether someone has more expertise than I do in the matter (my "Higher Self", for example, would be a teacher in this regard, not a commander, and is equivalent to my own conscience and intuition). 


So in this second case, there is also no need for blind or arbitrary obedience of any kind, and it is a relationship of teacher or instructor to pupil who already has a basis to acquire some further expertise, not needing to be led along due to a complete incapacity of some kind!

Returning to the first case on another interpretation, let us say that in fact you don't know better, since you "don't" know that you "ought" to obey them.  Then they cannot say that you have this reason to know it is better, namely that YOU KNOW it is better.  Yet how could they inform you?  Are your details as to why it is not better wrong?  The burden of proof to show that they are is entirely upon them, and the final judgment rests entirely in your own court as to whether they have satisfied your assessment of the facts they presented as evidence.  This will be a long argument for them in some cases...

They usually just point a weapon at you at this point... sometimes it is a weapon of the imagination, such as some bad fate which lies ahead either in another dimension, or perhaps in some place where they will take you to better help persuade you to believe them by giving you their best version of that bad place, so you don't have to actually go there.  After all, merely obeying these people is enough to get you on the right path for ETERNITY... it would be worth it, they suppose, to approximate hell on earth for you rather than you face hell for eternity for failing to bring your ignorant and foolish head around to the fact that THEY KNOW BETTER what you should be thinking when you genuflect, or whether you should, or when etc.

Well, let's say they have a thirst for argument and reason, and endeavor to prove their point, but fail because in fact YOU know better than them what is best for your soul.  Maybe you don't know what is BEST, or maybe you don't know better than EVERYONE, but you know better THAN THEM, and that is enough to decide the case.

So either they prove their point, or they fail, but the burden is on them, not you, because in the end, it is YOUR decision, and YOUR judgement that must be brought to bear upon it.  The case is open only when YOU decide to hear them, and it is CLOSED when YOU decide that it is.

If this is not the case, then they must amend their assertions to the simpler and more brazen form, which is that "YOU BETTER OBEY, OR ELSE" and just leave it at that.

It seems that in the end, this is what they in fact do.  Their argument is that, one way or the other, GREAT SUFFERING follows from disobedience, and GREAT BLISS from obedience.  So in this they have come round full circle because, is this not an ethical argument in another guise?

For one reason or another, great suffering follows disobedience, and great bliss from obedience.  You should prefer to obey for this reason.  Obey or suffer the consequences, obey diligently and perhaps receive some rewards instead!

That better makes their case clearer, doesn't it?  But is this the way "souls must evolve and be educated"?  It is like taking a blind worm from its own little domain into world of sight and sound, but demanding it be responsive to our images and sounds which we show it, though it doesn't possess these senses, blaming it if it fails to "learn" what is shown it, blaming it whether or not it had the capacity to judge for itself, blaming it when we don't provide it the required capacity or evidence, yet rewarding it if it just happens to go "right" instead of "left". 

It is like flipping a coin in the air and damning it if it falls "one way" and blessing it if it falls "the other way".  It is like doing this blindfolded, or else picking the sides arbitrarily, so as to "not know or decide" the outcome, yet claiming the outcome was "not predetermined" on this basis, though we flipped the coin and its outcome was determined by laws of physics the entire time.  And what of our decision to flip it, and when (to teach the poor worm, and when, and by what means?).  When does our responsibility end and that of the poor ignorant worm begin?  What of the coin?  Is there a "self flipping coin" somewhere in the universe that we have observed?

If so, what did our "observation" have to do with that outcome?  Do quantum fields collapse due to our observation?  Why did we decide to observe then instead of another time?  Did we account for how this might effect the eternal destinies of what we sought to obey us "freely"? 

Is it a free decision to do anything if the reward for doing so is presented on the one hand, and the pains for failure on the other?  Why should someone be believed?  If they are telling the truth, are they the only ones who present such a demand?  Why shouldn't any others be believed instead?  Do these different groups have a way to resolve which one of THEM is "best" for demanding obedience from those who should "better" obey them?  How will this be demonstrated/decided?  

How is the expertise on this matter attained?  How is it bestowed. How can one know it has been bestowed by THE HOLY SPIRIT (if that is what THE Holy Spirit does in fact do, bestow this INSIGHT) and not by some other spirit which claims authority by delivering, into the souls which are enfleshed, a "sense of holiness" (lol).

Why is your "sense of holiness" better as evidence than anyone else's?

The stupidity of this shallow form of sorcery which uses threats and hideous cajoling to obtain fearful obedience is as pathetic as ancient.

But when does obedience become reasonable?  Based on what evidence?  I have but to look at a building and see the expertise of its builder.  What have these priests built with their systems of belief? Were their histories shining episodes of bloodless, joyous conversions, or can this be said only of the histories of those whom they slaughtered on many occasions?

Well, at least the track record of these people and their histories are available for all to see and they do tell a story, but it is not one of gentle and kind awakenings by shining living light examples into the souls of those who, upon seeing these lights were themselves awakened to what, in themselves, they always knew but simply needed some encouragement to realize within their own hearts and consciences!

How do I know that the logic is good, at least?  Is my sense of what to better fear properly attuned by my incarnation and its circumstances so that these stories of hell and heaven reach my ears properly?  Were they delivered so as to meet them properly? How could I divine the difference?  If I did, how could I be confused about whether or not to obey?  Why would I NEED to obey?  Am I not actually just following my own sensibility at this point and doing what they happen to command, but merely following my own inclinations in fact?  Why can't this procedure continue indefinitely? Why must I understand the correctness of my moral superiors only in one abstract way, THAT they ARE superior, and just dumbly but with enthusiasm obey everything else on this one amazing realization?  If this realization, which is profound and should have very profound evidence to offer for its being accepted, was finally had upon the proper evidence, why cannot the proper evidence for all other important decisions be likewise given and not withheld?  Are not those realizations easier to make, and the evidence for them easier to supply than the huge and eternity-deciding question of "who knows better generally, and so should better be obeyed until further notice"?

When does providing such evidence simply make the decision a no-brainer so that even a machine with simple springs and coils would have made the same choice, because the weight of evidence was sufficient to decide the case by being the right evidence, in the right amount, on the right side of the balance?

Why is this correct amount of evidence, and the capacity to receive it properly, not provided anyway?  If they were provided, then what "freedom" is there in the choice, since no rightly made being would make a wrong decision in this situation except on a sheer fluke which shouldn't be accepted as a proper decision anyway?

What is "free" about this decision if it is properly presented?  If it is properly presented, I see no way to call it free.  It practically decides itself!

Then again, if it is NOT decided by its own logic, why is such logic offered? If it is sufficiently informative to present the alternatives of eternal damnation or salvation, why is this not sufficient for well-made decision making beings to make the right decision?  How stupid would such a being have to be in order to turn down such well-presented information and make a decision whimsically in the wrong direction?  Who made such a whimsical being so whimsical? What is the value in having the ability to be "whimsical" on such a matter?  Why is that called "freedom"?  Freedom to do what?  Commit arbitrary actions leading to horrible fates?  Is that really a value?

How does that enrich the value of the correct decision?  How does one say, "It is better to have had a chance to whimsically throw away eternal bliss and take eternal hell instead of not having this absurd and arbitrary risk imposed upon me"?  How does that enrich the "choice" to avoid such a fate?  Does one have to realize that being whimsical is not an advantage?  Is that not obvious?  Then why offer it as a form of moral freedom?  What IS moral freedom?  The ability to stupidly do something which patently sends one to hell for no other reason than "I can"?  Really?  Where's the "temptation" in that?

Is it a test of our "morality" or our ability not to be sheerly stupid?  Why make a being able to be stupid, but not make it tempting to be, and call that a "moral test"?

If it is made tempting enough to look so plausible as not being simply stupid, then why call it a meaningful test rather than an evil deception?  How could one tell the difference?  If one can tell there is a difference, but not what that difference is or in which way it ought to make one decide, is there not a form of intelligence which must be supplied to the agent to enable it to know when and how to investigate further, and by what criteria to judge better, so as to overcome this cognitive and possibly ethical dissonance enforced against it?  

This seems to be a form of torment all its own.  But if this form of intelligence IS supplied, how much?  If too much, then again we are back to the original situation and the choice is made FOR the agent, since it just chooses what obviously leads to heaven rather than hell.  If not enough, then hasn't the fate of the agent been sealed for it?  Again, if the competence to judge is supplied sufficiently, and the evidence also, hasn't the decision "made itself"?  Why wouldn't it?  What error of the logical apparatus of any of the parts would be involved?  Who supplied this deficiency in the design of the decision process so that this happened?  Did it come out of nowhere?

If out of God's will, isn't God the one who decided?  Then where is the "freedom" which was claimed to be such a blessing and bringer of accountability to the agent under the duress of making these strange decisions upon which their eternal existence and its quality or derangement of quality will depend?

Yet if this decision procedure is well-defined and executed by laws of logic and causation which preserve the meaning and validity of God's design, what is the meaning of its failure?  Is that not also God's design? In which case, does He not then design some to suffer and others to inherit bliss without their having any real say in the matter?  Why create hell and beings to put in it?  Is that "kind and loving"?

Why brandish carrots and sticks?  Is not virtue and "what is right" obvious without needing to be goaded by bribes and threats?  Isn't higher-ordered morality something beyond this sort of silly game we use to train dogs?   Are our souls so pathetic really?  Is this "God" a person or a dog-trainer?

Why not just make well-behaved dogs then?  Why claim to have produced some marvel if the dog might have something in its little soul that makes it scoff at the dog biscuit and refuse to do a trick, or else not fear the scolding and do what it pleases rather than what is commanded to it.  What made it please differently than commanded?  Why was this put there, and why was the threshold not made so that it would be lower than the pleasure offered by heaven as a reward for performing tricks of obedience?

Who are these people, demons, or whatever they are, trying to kid?  "OBEY OR ELSE"!!  This is their "morality", their "evolution", their "faithful devotion to what is right"?  If so, then it is CRAP, and they can keep it and do with it what they like.

What good is their fellowship if this DOOKEY is what they offer as a moral basis of the relationship (of obedience to them)?  What good are they if, upon turning down their smelly foul offerings we they turn these same things into weapons to hurl at us?   These are snarling trolls that came out from under a bridge with pathetic stories and said "obey" and said "morality is in this, in how well you obey, and whether you obey in the first place" etc.  

Whoever swallowed that hook wouldn't need much bait anyway, I'd think.

So in fact, I am forced by the silliness of these positions to find that the "right hand  path" is for pathetic creatures without a Real Moral Constitution.  But they've surely by now been filtered out so as to be recognized as the moral oil paintings that they are, and the end of the world in which their torment of those who will not blend into their schemes of domineering exploitation can now be sped along to its conclusion!

If you survived THIS torment, THIS hell, for THIS long, even in ONE LIFE you have proven yourself "made of better stuff" than these monsters.  YOU MUST have had something in you which was made of something rarer than platinum-iridium, since you weren't persuaded by the biggest sticks and carrots they could find to dismiss it in favor of their arbitrary demands that you forsake your own Treasure and bargain with their poverty!!!

The Gnostic Truth as I understand it is THE "Left Hand Path", and

if THIS is the "Left Hand Path", then I have two left hands.

As I have already demonstrated many times, and in the same manner as Aristotle and all the other true logicians of the past and till today, there is a fundamental asymmetry between an identity and a contradiction.  An identity allows a translation into its own reflection, has "reflexivity" in algebraic terms.  A contradiction of this per definitionem, CANNOT.  It has NO IDENTITY, but CONTRADICTS ITS OWN IDENTITY, because what a contradiction MEANS is a negation of identity!  Therefore it is not merely an adaptation to or image of logic which preserves identity, but is fundamentally oriented against it, and cannot translate into it, nor in fact can it receive a translation from it.  It is in fact the very essence of evil, for if we take the metaphysically Originally Real as the issuer of Real Power to Exist, then it exists ON ITS OWN. But it cannot be duplicated in this regard, being the "ALL" of this.  Therefore the evil forces which depend upon it, also cannot receive it in that they cannot BECOME Original, being falsifications!  Therefore, they cannot be integrated into Reality, but must siphon off a corruption of it.  They must mutilate the Original in some "intermediate zone", which is a domain of CONTRADICTION IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, but not a symmetrical one.  It is different when the contradiction preserves the Real Identity, and different on the other hand when it contradicts that.  

In other words, "contradiction" is so fundamentally opposed, in this manner, that it is CHIRAL, such that contradiction means one thing when it preserves identity, and something else when it attacks identity, and this is shown in that each side contradicts the other in order to preserve its own identity, but it is different in that the Original existed without contradiction, and requires it only to preserve against that which comes into existence by means of contradiction.  So let there be an example with the Original Reality being "A" and the contradiction against it being called "~A".   But in fact, the meaning of A is fundamentally THIS:  (A & ~~A).  It is itself and it does not contradict itself (~~, where ~ is a contradiction called "not" so if I say "True" then "~True" means "False").  

Now see that this is simply IDENTITY, which is to say that "IF it is, THEN it is, and Isn't Not". Rather like how if an organism is REALLY ONE ENTITY, then its various parts stay together and are in a harmony with each other, and this is found to be the case in biology.  But if something contradicts this, it is, ITSELF, not a part of that identity.  It CONTRADICTS THAT Identity.  But this is METAPHYSICS, and there is no exceptional case to a general fact, for the all and one are the same in metaphysics when dealing with ESSENCE...  THEREFORE:

• An identity which doesn't contradict itself is AN IDENTITY AS SUCH (A & ~~A) means EVERYWHERE SOMETHING EXISTS, it is A and ~~A
• A contradiction of the identity of Originally Real Being is a contradiction of IDENTITY AS SUCH
• If ~A in this case, we are really saying ~(A & ~~A), so the formula goes IF ~A, then ~(A & ~~A)
• That results in If ~A, then (A) & ~A & ~~~A.  That is, (A) & ~A and ~A.  That is (A) because remember, "A" existed WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, and THEN was contradicted by this spurious "~A".  Not-ness had previously always negated itself, but then became a negator of SUBSTANCE when it first was released from its self-negation (in ~~A) and created a freak called ~A.  Yet if this is the case, then it cannot have identity, since it came into being from the term A by a contradiction of it.  So it is itself an A'.  But if it can contradict A and come into being as A', it must have identity in this process, and so becomes subject to contradiction of itself by itself.  It does this because it really is what was defined in the beginning in the Original Reality, a non-being (~(~A)).  Therefore, If ~A, then A', but if A', then ~A', and so if ~A then ~~A, so if ~A then (~A & ~~A), which is to say (~A & A), or (A & ~A).  Therefore the tacit reality of A is preserved as (A) in the identity of ~A, and it contradicts itself by contradicting its own contradiction of A, yet persisting in its own contradiction of A, so that it is a parasitic pseudo-statement, a mockery without substance, a parasite.
• This is fundamentally a sitution which is contradicted by A in an eternal fashion, so that eventually ~A grinds itself out of existence by resisting the Eternal Truth until it must sacrifice its own (stolen) distinctions and substances through "transmutation" into its opposite (which is required in the other direction in order for it to surivive, by the sacrifice of the Identity of the Real).
• Therefore, the logics of the contradictions interact like this:
1. If A, then ~~A *Identity is Self-Same in Essence
2. If ~A, then (A & ~A) *by metaphysical explanation, above
3. A *by metaphysical explanation, above
4. Therefore ~~A by (1, 3)
5. therefore (A & ~~A) by (& 3,4)
6. "~A", which is to say, A'.  
7. Therefore (A & ~A) *as explained above because already (A), and so the contradiction is spurious, demonstrated by (&I, 3,6) (I means "introduction", &I means "if A, and if B, then (A & B) can be conjoined).
8. A! by (R,3) (R means "reiteration"), and by (&E, 7) (E is "Exploitation", &E means "if (A & B), then A (or B), simply).
9. Therefore ~~A, by (1,6) (Implication, or -->, 1,6) as well as by (R,4), as well as by (&E, 5).
10. Therefore, A, ~~A, and (A & ~~A), as it always was by (3, 4, 5) 
11. and as it always will be (8, 9, 10)
12. And Now, for Now is just "Always was" meeting "Always will be" (&I, 10,11)
13. Therefore, (A & A) by (~~E, 5, 10, 11, 12) (~~ is "double negation", a rule saying if ~~A, then A), whic his to say "A, and ONLY A, Eternally".
• And so this is the logical story by which we saw an evil error manifest as an illusion, which is to say a spurious pretense at usurping Originality (ontological plagiarism, fraud, assault), and so proved all the more how unreal is its own truth, but demonstrating the reality of its own falsehood, how it was really an illusion, or a "real illusion", which is to say an illusion of reality, and so in the end alluded to it by its own spurious manifestation and ineveitable, and complete, and eternal demise.  And the Original Reality GLEAMED in its own Resilience, absorbing this episode back into itself just as a healhty body destroys a cancer and continues on in good health just as if it never had a cancer at all, by killing it early enough, which assuradly we are doing NOW.