Poemander

Any kind of freedom, or liberty, sought or even imagined is, ultimately, condenses to a mere desire of breaking from the effects of the cause or willing the effects while renouncing the cause.

In this sense, such freedom is an utopia as there is no cause without the effect. Freedom is not an escape or a rebellion: one cannot be free from the effects if not free from the causes. And if one pursues such a lopsided privilege, than such freedom is not at all a freedom, but a pursuit of power required in maintaining the asymmetry .

In order to be free from both one needs to be separate from both, which is not even hypothetically possible, since it is not only the acts that form causes, but also the omissions to act that will trigger the effects. As discussed earlier, the existence itself is the cause and the effect. Therefore, one can neither stop producing the cause, nor stop receiving the effects. On the other hand, Freedom can be a total acceptance of both, the deed and the outcome. Acceptance transcends both and annuls both cumulatively.

Therefore, an entity is free whenever it accepts that it is free. So, the free will, an ingredient of freedom, lies in the fact of undertaking or not undertaking such an acceptance – that's all.

Thus freedom is not a 'right' or some sort of natural privilege, quite to the contrary; freedom is a choice, however, not as the 'freedom of choice', but as a 'choice of freedom' – the one and only possible choice. In other words, freedom is the point of perception.

Sounds simple and it really is. The conundrum is pivoted on resolution of remaining attached to one side of transaction and paradoxical insistence on its validity even when the outcome is perceived to be adverse.

Take the concept of fate for example. The so called freedom is pretty much always relinquished voluntarily, yes in both cases of the giver and the taker. Anyone entering the transaction with an expectation of a specific outcome is relinquishing the freedom in leu of this expectation which itself is a bond. This bond if often supported by fear and other incumbents derived from the possibility of failed expectation. The borrower is feared of repossession if unable to meet the payment, lender is anxious about the defaulting loans. The parents are stressed that their children will not become who they planned they would, children are restrained by the emotional toll of their parents' expectations and indeed the weight of 'investment' parents made into them. Spouses are jealous because they are afraid of other one breaking the vows. Communities are exasperated that the government is failing them in basic rights while taking advantage of them through force or taxes. The doctrine of original sin is not making things easier either, ensuring a permanently broken expectation of ever redeeming one's debt to the 'creator' and I wouldn't be surprised to discover that such a 'creator' is too permanently distressed with the non-performance of his/her/their subjects.

What they all need to do is to accept the possibility of non-performance and failure together with the possibility of performance without putting extra weight on any of the possibilities. You are allowed to think of this as a hypocritical and an impossible recommendation, yet I insist on continuing this line of thought and taking it to a point where the following assertion should gradually start making sense: all the above mentioned and many other contracts are inherently defunct.

There are two sides of the very same reasoning: The parties entering these contracts do not have the legal capacity to do so.

Side one.

In what legal capacity did I enter the social contract at birth? As a newborn? De facto? De jure? I clearly deny and repudiate any of such agreements on the grounds of incapacity. Neither, did I make a contract with my parents at birth, nor in my childhood, thus I reject the notion of owing anything to them. Equivalently, I do not expect my children to be owing anything to me. Marriage contract, expressed or implied is an absolute joke. To be in love is to be mad, it is to be incapacitated in legal terms. And if I did it in the right mind, that means that I wasn't in love and that means that all my vows were lies. Such contract is deemed void before it even becomes a binding contract. Did I too enter any contract with God? Devil? You all must be kidding me. The priests who claim to be his representatives can never show me the prove of such an arrangement. And even if they do, somehow, it is clearly not a contract made on equal terms. I repudiate this too. How about the corporations, banks, societies? They do not exist. I know, I know, they maybe incorporated entities, I too studied corporate law. But who are they? I only saw their representatives, directors. Can they prove to me that they are indeed representing these entities? Best they can do is to show me their letter of appointment by shareholders. Now show me the shareholders! At least 51% of them, I want to look them in the eye when signing a contract. Oh, I see, the company is huge and the shareholder base is to dispersed to be brought together, then sorry, anything I signed is invalid because it is not an equal arrangement. Banks have the power to multiply money and you are saying that I can sign a contract with the bank on equal terms? This too goes in the bin. Partnerships? Fine, ever wondered why professional audit and accounting firms are arranged as partnerships (nowadays in disguise of corporate identity aka limited partnership)? Because money is a personal matter, or more clearly the debits and credits that they represent. This is a question of honour, and honour demands eye-to-eye relationship. I am an individual, not the same as any other party, insurmountable difference between each and everyone. How can you apply to me the standard of an average 'reasonable' person? Potentially, every legal contract is repudiated this way.

Side two.

The law recognizes the fact that husband and wife are one and tend to act in consort. Every agreement between them is deemed to be no-binding unless deliberately drafted to be otherwise. Yet, this caveat is relatively recent, so we shall deem spouses as one. What about parents and children? I'm going to share the last drop of water with my children. What contracts are we talking here? You have got to be sick, very sick. To make legal arrangements with your children is like to make a contract with yourself. Remember, you need at least two parties to the contract. Repudiated.

Neighbors? Friends? Brothers and sisters? We have grown together, we ate of the same plate. We have too much in common to treat us as unrelated parties. There is a conflict of interests no matter what we agree on. We never start with a cart Blanche, there is always more to what is written in the contract. Our overarching motifs and entanglements make any legal arrangement at best questionable. And while this is so, why do you think that a contract with the society as a whole is any different? And is there indeed such a contract? Who is society? Is it my town? My country? Whole world? If it is not specified then whom is the contract with? If a society is the collection of individuals representing it, than I am one of these individuals. Why do I have to make a contract with myself? Clearly absurd. I am also a Cosmos, I recognize myself in every star and in every brook running down the hill. I am one with God, if you want it this way. Why make contract with myself? Absurd. Absurd. Absurd.

The two sides of the same coin described above are not extremes. They are not the hypothetical oppositions. Do not start drawing the line between them and saying, “well, we must be somewhere in between on this sliding scale”, no, no and no. These two sides represent the very same phenomena, aka real life. They both have the same rational and factual outcome: the absurdity of contractual arrangements, obligations, debts, but also the entitlements, rights and privileges. At this point you may think that I have gone too far, ok, stand up and leave. Yet, if you still are willing to linger you may go on asking me what do I think this very tangible system of laws and legalities which I have so lightheartedly renounced actually is? And I tell you: it is exactly that fickle sliding scale that you were just trying to build between my so called opposites. It is an imaginary structure constantly trying to balance itself out and adapt to the pressures of the very real forces thrown at it. The freedom is not in avoidance of this structure, but in understanding its ephemeral nature. The outcomes of such system are transient and frankly, irrelevant, effecting not the bottom line where the sum of all debits always equals the sum of all credits. Zero

Things will get better,

They do get better,

Even when for worse,

They'll still get better...

Minutes, days, hours,

Lifetimes – who cares!

Hey, saddle the horse up!

Nay, nobody dares

Stopping us here!

This town is dead.

We aim for the stars,

Why should we regret?

Let bullets lament us.

Departing in vain.

We leave this convent

To start over again.

Forerunners of fortune,

The footprints abound

We trample in thick mud,

By horses starbound.

Rot happened to this place,

Den filled with the rats:

Lads turned into bitches

And bitches in brats.

We're sane in this madness,

And the madness is vast,

Even greater is sadness

Which consumes us like rust.

Ah! Wherever the path leads,

We ride in moonlight.

Earth trembles with heartbeats,

Weeps,

Pounds with might!

Shall we begin with the premise that any critics is baseless unless weighted by the counter argument, and likewise assume that an agreement can only be stipulated by the presence of a disagreement? It seems commonsensical, yet the question itself harbours an oxymoron: the nonconsensual agreement. We, however, may be faced with the critics that an agreement is essentially a reciprocal consent, yet such critics falls short in the absence of a counter-argument, namely, the consensual disagreement.

Plurality is one of such arguments. One shouldn't underestimate the pronoun 'we', for it is the active dimension of a latent identifier 'I', carrying the similar, if not maximized, power of implication. It is implicit that 'we' has a de facto consensus which makes an agreement a matter of fact rather than matter of proof. The question is wether 'I' can have a critical disagreement while still remaining a part of 'we'?

Our utilitarian mind, by training mainly, will try to carve out a definitive yes to such question processing the justification through the lens of pluralism, tolerance, the greater good for the greater number etc. The nature, however, tells us a different story. Has wolf a disagreement with a sheep? Not the slightest, tells us the ecosystem of the forest where the wolf and the sheep are the 'we' of the animal kingdom. Neither do they have an agreement within the same ecosystem. What transpires between them is pure existentialism, which is nothing else but a vetoed fragmentation of 'we', as a whole, with a singular and unanimous consent to exist. This consent is necessarily shared by all participants of the 'we' and, therefore, wolf will eat sheep and the sheep cannot 'disagree' whilst under the de facto consensus of ecosystem. They are unequal and yet fully equalized by the system. Thus is the paradigm: a discord within accord, inequality within equality and de jure within de facto. This shift happens as a focal point transgressing from 'we' to 'they' and so forth.

As mentioned, 'we' is a dimensional extension of 'I', 'they', however, is always ever a fragmentation of 'we', because 'they' cannot be outside of 'we', always remaining blanketed by 'we' of a higher magnitude. In the multilayered existence, identity is that focal point which shifts by will through the clusters of consensus. Societies, organisms, ecosystems, nations etc exist solely due to such implicit consensus. We can say it is pretty much a perfect symbiosis, where anyone regarded as a parasite is simply a myopic misinterpretation of what is a symbiosis of a higher level. Such myopia of identity lies at the core of misconceptions and conflict between otherwise similar ideologies.

Not surprisingly, the postulate of Darwinism, aka the survival of the fittest became embraced by both, the capitalist and the communist ideologies, having in principle very little difference except for the focal point on the spectrum of identity and consensus. Having 'stuck' in their focal paradigm, they fail to reconcile self-interest with altruism praising one and condemning the other. Existentialism as a precondition, on the other hand, has no point of fixation and travels along the continuum with the expansion or contraction of identity. It has no contradiction in representing compassion as selfishness and vice versa, empirically recognizing the practical symbiosis across the clusters of beingness.

Anarchism, either, is no foreign to existentialist realities. Anarchism is a resultant structure of a matured democratic society where the “demos” ultimately diffuse the “kratos”.

Democracy, as a tool of consensus is, however, susceptibly deceptive. The word itself is yet another oxymoron since two parts hardly relate: demos is predisposed to fragmentation yet kratos favours consolidation. Imagine people on the bus, they all are demos and the engine is kratos (power). Can they all operate the engine at a given time or does everyone want to? Thus they need a driver who may or may not follow their requests. They can vote, collude, sabotage yet the point is that they, willingly or not, do not have the direct linkage with the kratos – the engine. Hence springs the concept of fiduciary duty and the carving out of de jure from what is already de facto. Things don't stop here as demos continue fragment in the pursuit of their share of 'power'. Some, if not most, will look for ways to get into personal cars and start having a direct say over their engines. However, they'll discover that despite the powerful engine, they can only travel at sixty kilometers per hour and have to obey multiple traffic rules, occasionally getting stuck in traffic jam or doing a needless detour. All becomes a mess, again, demos are not in possession of kratos; the power of their engines seems to have become useless as the kratos has consolidated into a higher power layer of the traffic regulating system. They can pursue it further and endlessly chase the fleeting control or run to the fringes seeking a carte blanche only to realize that most of the virgin pastures have already fallen under the jurisdiction of an ever-strengthening powerhouse. Paradoxically, but the quickest they can come to democracy is by slowing down the chase. By relinquishing the unnecessary controls and taking just the immediate matters into their own hands, i.e. getting on a bicycle, single speed, or walking even – having a direct say over their own power and with it an immediate responsibility over their own progression.

Have you observed a busy market square? A seeming disorganization of participants doesn't in fact inhibit the ongoing affair. There is no rule of the road, yet people seem to miraculously avoid collisions with others, the stalls and the carts. Occasional bump gets ignored and any damage gets sorted right on the spot. Some conflicts may erupt with the fight but resolved with or without the help of bystanders and the activity is restored back to normal almost immediately. Is this a near-perfect regulated system. If yes, than by whom? Apparently, this can be an example of anarchy in action; an order of a a seemingly disorderly and self-regulated system. Can this be true? Possibly, but there is one guiding principle which has been ignored or misunderstood by the utopian proponents of anarchism and misinterpreted by the existentialists: the implicit consensus of the 'we'. This implicit consensus is the democracy in action, where no voting, no representation, no matters of agreement or disagreement are necessary for its clockwork functioning. The functioning of such a powerful and unanimous consensus is based on a very strong, if not the strongest out there incentive: participation. Any monetary incentive, in this context, is only a remote (mainly time-delayed) claim on the very same participation. Participation or inclusion in the ecosystem of the 'we' of whatever magnitude (cells in the organism, organisms in the vegetable or animal kingdoms, people in the organized or informal societies etc) is the strongest incentive equating to nothing else but existence as such.

Quite remarkable is that the multilayered existence allows us to participate in the multitudes of 'we' of various magnitudes. This is how the earlier mentioned sheep eaten by to the wolf, cedes its participation in the 'we' of the flock but continues to remain in the 'we' of the forest's ecosystem. The greater the fixation on a particular layer of existence, the greater is the need for the superstructures of control and delegation of authority ( because you can only have this much of control) within a particular layer.

“They” has proven to be a terrible word, something to be scared of, somebody to protect from and lash against. The entire history of mankind is squashed, like a ping-pong ball in the relentless contest of “we” and “ they”. “They” is a product of fragmentation; however, it is a mistake thinking that “we” must than be the product of a consolidation, no. “We”, too is a fragmentation of a grater “I”, so there you go, now you have a counter-argument of consensual disagreement:

“I” is a consolidated “we”, an accomplished symbiosis capable of self-awareness. Thus, power, being a resultant of awareness, always consolidates into “I” and never truly belong to demos who remain in “we -they” state. Instead, demos fragment, further breaking “we” into separate “they”. The fragmentation occurs again, due to self-awareness, only this time as a step down, a retreat from the awareness and power of a greater “I” and into the power and awareness of a lesser “I”; as above, so below. “We” and “they” are a stepladder, an interim flight of stairs descending and climbing up the levels of “I” identities of the multilevel existence.

Wolf can never be equal with the sheep whilst both are trapped inside the “we – they” intermittency, and only upon succumbing to the wolf does the sheep gain “equality” – by regressing to the lesser “I” of the wolf and progressing to the greater “I” of the ecosystem at the same time. Life beds inherent inequality while death is a great equalizer. Physical or archetypal death, but only the relinquishing of identity can lead to equality. Realized identity of “I” is the state of latent consensual equality, a state characterized by physical or archetypal death. Unrealized identity of “we” is an active state of transformation and nonconsensual inequality characterized by living or actioning. Existence is neither equal nor unequal because it is both, the life and the death, the “I” and the “we” are continuously progressing and regressing in the looped circuit. While this cycle may sound like a terrible fate, nevertheless, this too is

a great opportunity for action, and the greatest action out there is awareness. By being aware of own acts one transgresses the identity assigned to them by existence and is now in position to act at will from a different layer altogether. Unless such opportunity is realised and taken, identities continue to fragment further, distancing themselves from the very same power and the very same control they were chasing all along.

Shall we make it clear to ourselves, explain at least, what is value and why anything is valuable? I'll jump forward and say that the simple answer is time; pilosophical answer is human; complicated answer is continuity.

For anything to be quantifiably valuable it must have some lifespan or have a foreseeable duration. The better clarity about duration, the more adequate and rational is the quantification. The perishable food stuff is valuable because it can be consumed within a certain period of time. The chunk of iron is valuable because it can be made into a useful tool that will too have a lifespan. The banknote is valuable because it has a claim on some debt that too has a duration or a maturity (at least in principle).

Until this point it is rather simple. Now, why is the land valuable or why is gold valuable which is eternal in theory? Starting with gold we can say again that it can be made into something useful, like any other material, into a tool or a jewelry and thus have a theoretical lifespan of 'usefulness'. But this is only half-true; firstly gold jewelry (just like other non-corrosive pieces) has an effectively infinite lifespan, secondly gold's value is mainly representative (like other monetary metals, banknotes or any forms of money). What does it mean? It means that we came close to our complicated answer: continuity.

Gold's value is derived from its claim on cosmological continuity in essence; however, it's more direct claim is on human fertility, being the form of a debt representation of 'up-keeping' cost to female fertility in particular, as was discussed elsewhere in this text. Human fertility is in turn a direct claim on continuity or a cyclical infinity of time. This brings us back to understanding of values as duration of time, only this time an infinite duration or more precisely a continuity. Same with the land, it's value is derived from continuity of human race: place of habitat, provision of resources, fertility of livestock and crops. We have all heard (and agreed) that human is the measure of all things, that is our philosophical answer. We didn't have to go far to get to it, yet make no mistake, there is no value outside of human mind: existence is diminutive, but value requires time, which is only a product of mind.

By saying that existence is diminutive, we also mean that it is infinite, both are the same. Knowing this we shall proceed with our quest, which by the way is always inside the mind.

Equipped with some understanding let's look again and perishable food. We said that it's quantifiable value is derived from its lifespan or shelf-life. This is true, but also it has another dimension; food's essential value relates to an 'up-keeping' cost of continuity, sustaining human life and reproductivity. This explains why a bag of rice might cost a dollar in the shop, but in the times of famine most people will pay almost anything for the same bag. In the first instance it was only the value of shelf-life, in the second instance it took a straight value of human life.

At this junction it should not be a far stretch to conclude that value is two-dimensional: the shallower dimension relates to the timespan of usefulness and is, at least in theory, economically quantifiable; the deeper dimension is always a claim on continuity (continuity of human life, bloodline, race, freedom), it is deeply emotional and unquantifiable in economical terms since the aim is at infinite. Such proposition may in fact explain the background mechanics of often unprecedented risk taking in times of crisis, war and an extreme opportunism, where the deeper dimension overwhelmingly disables the everyday functioning of a shallower, economically calculable value dimension. Thus we observe in the markets the so called irrational exuberance or the decoupling of prices from the rationality of the underlining economies. So be it the acts of violence, a threat to existentialism or an insatiable risk appetite, there must be some formidable catalyst that wipes out the superstructures of economical values and drills down to the very core of humanitarian precepts.

I should be duly apologizing at this stage because what I am going to say is so obvious that writing about it is a waste o paper and the screen space if you would, for the said catalyst is nothing but trust, or lack thereof. 'In God we trust' is written on the dollar bill, and the words 'we trust' are the key. Efficient market (or any functional market to a degree) and fair exchange have to be highly impersonal, for if they are not, the deeper dimension of values quickly reestablishes it's dominance throwing every trading into the territory of mortal combat or an altruism, depending which side the pendulum swings. Needles to say that price discovery is nonexistent in such situation. Who can negotiate prices with a knife to their throat?

On deeper dimension every aspect of exchange is highly personal, it is often 'all or nothing', we can even say that exchange per se is nonexistent in such a situation. Therefore, the only way markets or any sort of fair exchange may exist is through the means of trust, a trust in functionality of any kind of arbitrating authority to ensure the impersonality of an exchange. All governments, in theory, exist solely for this purpose: uphold the trust in fair exchange. And it doesn't matter, whether the ultimate function of arbitrage falls on community, the monarch, the judge (designated by community or the royal charter) or even God (thus 'in God we trust'). What matters is the preservation of trust in the arbitrary power of whoever.

The decentralization is the logical step in direction of support towards the indisputable trust in the functionality of any exchange, to the point that it even appears as 'trustless', whereas in reality it is as close to pure definition of trust as it can be: the trust is the reliability that doesn't need to be thought of.

Without such trust the tenuous systems of quantifiable values immediately retreat and do not show their heads above the ocean of universal values aka continuity.

You may wonder how could these terrifying waters of unquantifiable values be also our very nature and the origin? They always are and they always remain the sole reality of beingness. The markets, exchange, trade, governance are merely the superstructures on the raft of civilization. We have navigated this raft for too long, smitten and sobered up by the occasional wave. How else will you call the empathy and outright selflessness in the face of horrible crisis and war crimes? They are the sobering effects of reality nothing less.

We are seeking a way home, home of ultimate and unquantifiable values, yet hardly anyone is willing to abandon the raft yet. People need to re-learn how to swim, hence is the need for simulation: the markets. The exchange is our learning mechanism. If we are to succeed in this learning, we'll need to quantify everything, derive the costs of friendship, the costs of love and beauty. We'll need to be able to break them down into fractions and trade them on the open market. We'll need to saturate the information asymmetries and reach the complete efficiency of the market. The instantaneous settlement and impersonality of the exchange shall exponentially increase the velocity of money and remove the reliance on any sort of debt instruments. At some point all trade and exchange will completely disconnect from decision-making leaving our tokenized personifications in the realm of an algorithm. Quantification will return back into the continuity dissolving the price tags into a single quality of universal love, that's what is re-learning to swim is in our scenario.

The words are a claptrap if not with the punch,

They must take it down, abolish and crunch.

They too must uplift, like a magical aether,

Words shall heal the wounds or cast souls in nether.

How many thin lots accepted from fools,

The skols of hemlock to liars and fawners.

How high still required to carry the woods

Of fir, of the pine and the box, acquit murderers.

Those same who condemn shall rise the pennant,

Trumpet and proclaim contrived type of heresy.

To their calumny a life-time tenant,

Shall not I refrain nor lapse regeneracy.

And once the machines recite every word,

Recuperate I shall meaning forbiddenly.

Inspire them first to be like god

Then only come back and teach 'em feel humanly.

For all the sagas written,

For all the wars we fought.

Those who stood strong were smitten,

Their bravery has been for naught.

All hands that gave were bitten.

Those new what have they brought?

They'll wait, at best they'll sit in

Cause that's what they've been taught.

And this ain't a new battle,

We live in brave new world.

Give me the right to be unhappy,

Give me the right to be at fault!

A lady with the scythe in drapes concealing,

She'll ask if I'm at all distraught.

I'll say, I have this nagging feeling,

I've only been confronted by one thought:

Behind facades of the dealing,

What will I leave behind, what have I wrought?

She'll glare at me with eyes annealing,

She wouldn't say a word.

She isn't here, I've just been dreaming.

We live a brave new world.

Carl was a special kid, as they would say nowadays, but back then some classmates simply called him retard. We can't claim to know this detail, however, since we are rarely concerned with who said what, and so did Carl. He used to sit quietly submerged in his own thoughts watching another Carl playing with the children. He would vividly imagine things that didn't necessary exist, at least as it seemed to others. Nevertheless, Carl had invented his own language that he could use to write messages and exchange them with the wooden doll he hid up in the attic. He didn't know yet that this doll was called Tjuranga. Fair enough, we thought, why concern yourself with names if you know what you are faced with? So be it, we read those messages and this made him feel at peace.

One day Carl waited for the train walking unhurriedly on the edge of the platform. Express was approaching and the rail tracks began vibrating sending a resonance wave straight into Carl's diaphragm. He wobbled slightly along the edge closing his eyes in anticipation. Excruciating blow of a whistle and a sudden air vacuum. Carls's heart sank through the hole in the diaphragm with the shiver running up his spine, straight through his neck and... This debilitating sense of freedom. But, the last millisecond, another Carl took over cowardly refusing to make this one extra step... This was when we almost met. The express whizzed past, picking Carl up with the air current, whirling around and dropping him on the side of the platform barely alive and gasping for air.

No, Carl didn't change much since then. Walking home from work he could always send another Carl ahead and know immediately what's cooking while the other Carl lingered behind. This was fine. He could also schedule meetings before going to bed knowing well that another Carl will handle these appointments while he is asleep. He held no grudge, taking full responsibility for his own actions and thoughts. And if something didn't align, he could always put it down in writing, or make a drawing and analyze the phenomena from various angles.

This would have gone like this if not for Tjuranga, and one day Carl started to feel bewildered and, frankly, quite a bit frightened: this happened when he stumbled upon the unknown.

He felt there was something bigger than he can explain, imagine, consider. It even came to a point when Carl had to lock himself up in the room precluding any outside contact. This helped only a bit because something big was still looming over him, seeping through cracks and just waiting for the right moment to break in.

Carl had to draw a circle, a circle of mandala, fencing with words the remainder of his little island built on imaginations. These words he put into phrases, devotedly inscribing them inside his black books. And if you were to ever find and read these books you'll discover an elaborate maze of words and images scrupulously devised only to hold out the assail of the unknown. But don't you be fooled by the appearance, by the cover. Past the layers of symbols and intricate ornamental designs, path always led to the center. And this was where we stood.

This barricade won't hold: Carl knew it too well, as soon as he'll put down his pen the inevitable will happen. And it happened.

He closed his eyes, like many years ago, in anticipation of the inevitable. The doorbell rang frantically. The house shook, the eyes of the unknown glared from every little crevice. They stared right into Carl's mind, straight through his closed eyelids. Like before, Carl's heart sank and a shiver ran up his spine, straight up his neck and... The other Carl stood still, he was calm, no longer dare to intervene. He was already with us, he always was.

This is how the Red Book came about. Red, the sea of red engulfed the mystery of men, it came upon them crushing, sending the relentless waves upon their shores. The waters reached inceptial mandala, consuming row by row it's circuitous labyrinths.

The world hasn't changed since then, but life became different. What used to be right became wrong, what used to be wrong became virtuous and what used to be virtuous became laughable. Poor Carl, he thought he went mad when we approached him. He wouldn't believe, in fact, he couldn't believe anymore.

On his deathbed he was asked if he believes in god. No, said Tjuranga, he didn't have to. He didn't believe because he knew, because he met the unknown

A letter to nowhere,

A script with no name

I stare in emptiness,

Its all but the same.

I don't know whose fault it is,

I don't even care,

But heart fills with heaviness

And drowns in despair.

I tried to repair this

With patchwork precarious,

Amending scenarios, cryout from abyss,

But all turned deficient, all went amiss, amiss, amiss.

A letter to nowhere,

A forlorn attempt in unregistered post,

I might have been somebody,

But hopelessly lost in nowhere, nobody,

I'm just a ghost, a ghost, a ghost.

From that which was left of me,

Wrote words with no name

Aimed to no addressee in nowhere land.

A far cry from agony, just vast open maime.

I'm not even part of this, a cut off, a strand, a strand, a strand.

A crowd, they thought otherwise,

They hung, hanging up by the thread.

Cannibalizing on matters of trivial,

Demanding profusely circus and bread.

And who'd tantalise a thing immaterial?

Long disappeared, already bled.

But no, most unforgivable

Is manumission and the regret.

And who can escape this intricate net? This onerous mission, collective delusion, deception and fret?

It's inextricable, from the onset,

But what would you do with this freedom anyway? Forget, forget, forget.

Circle is the greatest hindrance to a rational mind. It is the most inundating and alien concept ever observed. How did it enter our living with such elegance yet out of this world transcendence? It must be a plot, a deliberate stratagem to make us ever wonder, or perhaps even question ourselves, our nature and our origin. circle doesn't fit our understanding, it simply is beyond our logical proof. Oh, how perfect, accomplished and rational our world would have been should this circle have not entered the Euclidian realms. But this is not how it meant to be: inscribed right into the basis of a grand design, the circle is integral to every mystery and truth contained in this world and beyond.

Rationality is unable to reach circle directly, thus the transcendental nature of pi – this bridge between the rational and real, subject and object.

Geometry, from the dawn of time, deals with only one problem – the problem of observer. For the observer brings one major complication, or a simplification for this matter – a point of view. In essence, everything in geometry is a sphere if there is no point of view or the observational bias, shall we call it as such. The straight line, all shapes and solids are the observational bias. If you exclude this bias by assuming a point of view of every imaginable observer from every imaginable coordinate, you will get any form as a sphere. This can be easily witnessed from a simple experiment of spinning any shape or solid with a consistently changing axis tilt. Upon completion, after the axis will have passed through every coordinate (no matter how many dimensions, but for the visualisation we here assume a three-dimensional shape) we'll get an imprint of a sphere. This shows us the 'unbiased view' of any shape or an item should the observer be present in all locations at the same time. The sphere, thus is a 'uniform' shape or indeed the only 'unbiased' shape existing.

Now, moving further, what if in the mentioned experiment we spin a finite line? This would have still given us a sphere, but the times when the tip of the line will pass in front of the observer and viewed as a point will be considerably lesser than the observation of a line at its length. Without accounting for the number of times each part of the figure passes before the observer, we'll still get the sphere on completion of all passages. Should we want to strengthen our bias by counting how many times each part has been observed, we'll eventually be able to deduce and revert back to the given shape, here, a line. An unbiased observer, therefore, will not only be in all places at the same time (eliminating space bias) but also will not discriminate towards the repetitiveness or higher probability vs lower probability, i.e not regarding 2 occurrences as more informative then 1 occurrence (eliminating time bias).

So, what if the object observed is an infinite line? The information of the full sphere will not be complete where the tip of the line (infinite line) passes through, or unable to pass through, the observer. Every other shape of an infinite property will not render a perfect sphere either for the same reason – incompleteness of information. However, this issue here is rather irrelevant because by working to remove the bias from the various aspects of observation should we not also assume the limitless nature of the observer 'inline' (pun intended) with the limitless nature of the observed form? I don't think it is too much of a stretch since we have already delved into concepts rather abstract, at least to pragmatic minds. I should make a detour at this point, clarifying that the abstractness of a concept is merely a matter of pragmatism which itself is based on observational bias. Thus, one should at least accept that even some most disconnected and abstract idea must have such angle of observation from where it appears definite, practical and concrete. And by not deliberately ignoring this and other angles, one should get a rather more rounded picture, or should I say a 'sphere'.

Thus, after we have eliminated the bias of space, time and limitlessness, the unbiased observation of an infinite object will render the shape of a boundless sphere, which is in fact, what we contemplate to be the shape of the Universe.

Towering trees, they tangle stars like fishes in their cosmic nets.

Antares, vermilion heart, I do not breath the same, this world is not the same.

The tides of time, they flow to Rigel, I sail waters thy.

A silver needle threading diamonds, stitching souls with endless night.

Far and near, narrow and wide,

It's only light that knows the light!

I am thy spark, I know thy light!

In mortar pestling moondust, peace shall behoof, my spar.

Forever has no ending, for yearning fares this far.

A stoup of quick potation, enclave from lunar's fane,

A portion of the morrow is yesteryear's bane.

Inscribed in lucid notion, life-trace, a path, a trail.

Conjured of remotion, the ace of cups shan't pare -

All thirty three birth-flames commended to my care.

I roam eleven alleys at two o'clock at night,

Six Lucifers to spare kindling the lamplight.

The ram of a renewal, the steadfast horned host.

Wards key to golden meaning neath seahorses bearing post.

When cherubim blows shophar, a lightning strikes the sky.

Aye! verily it saith, “the truth is safest lie!”

I shall expand horizons, I shall uplift the veil.

Hold firmly through the passage on forked swallow's tail.

Those who traversed the bottom, need not they fret the top.

My compeer, ye ought remember how I lead ye to that drop?

I held your hand on your last breath, so many times I did.

Don't ye recall the waterfalls cascading at your feet?

My bosom pal, ye grew so numb, don't ye remember time?

The last of first, my maiden fled, skies wept your burnished dime.

I stood beside, I waited ye, I looked ye in the eyes.

I testify, it was no crime, but slay to waken us.

And so I did, no one is just, save virtue of the star.

Thou art my lover. I am thy dream, 'tis life is mere farce.

Each time I kill, myself I die,

How would ye justify?

My Lord, oh please! Thou hast no law to crucify,

Who hangs from collar tie.

I dwell in ye, ye're my last abode, I need ye more than life.

How scant this strife,

Ye're asking what's my price:

I reconstruct whole universe to make ye throw this dice.

I have released the fish, ye're staring in stream.

How dare ye to call me names. Succumb! What's your last wish?

Forgiveness? Time forgets. Reminiscence I need!

One push, we fall. I thus implore, remember boon,

In ye I plant my seed.