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.