The Speaker

The microphone was approached. Among the words uttered were "but," by a voice ready to interrupt whatever response was given. 

"I am listening to your line of questioning, and I am in communication with where your questions come from and the false pretenses they inspire in others. Our age is realizing the power in the question—within a question there is an action. Within questions there are networks of assumptions. And so, I am in communication with the foundation of your question, and I see that it does not arise out of curiosity, but from a vehement will set on destruction of another's spirit. For this reason, what I have to answer your questioning with is, go find love in the world. Then only come back to me if I played a meaningful role in your life. And that is on you to judge, internally, without the deliberation of others.

Before you bring a question to me, listen carefully to my speech, its parts and its whole and all in between, so that you may relate it at length to a dear friend. If you do so then approach with a question, let it rest on your heart. Let your question be a young and vulnerable thought which dreams beyonds my horizons—and let it fill me with wonder; so that I may explore and create, in myself a new way of thinking, and in front of you, a unique response generated out of and for your own uniqueness. Then, let time continue for the process to happen again, with different faces in your spot and mine, or where I may be in yours and you in mine. Let the wheel of inspiration turn on its axis by offering a gentle, thorough, and heartfelt push that is a question."

The microphone was approached. "How come you do not support open dialectics and the challenging of views?"

"If the human spirit were an arena, I could see how one would approach it with a vernacular which spoke of 'challenging' and 'dialectics.'  This battleground is best played out in the individual spirit, where the individual plays up against the destructive thoughts and forces which threaten to bypass their peace and re-route their being. In matters of external communication, it has been thought that sharing is the most proper mode of dialogue.”

The microphone was approached. "Why should you get to decide what is wrong and right to say and allow for in this space? What experiences are you discounting by doing this? And what viewpoints are getting missed."

"The world is a continuous spectrum, and there are infinite opportunities for one to express themselves everyday.  The most simple of which is to write on a piece of paper, or speak a word to a dear friend.  The goal is not to be listened to; when this is the case, humanity breeds dictators.  When the goal is to listen together to a mode of thinking that subsumes and synthesizes what is different into a unified whole with unique parts—then humanity breeds humanity.  

And, as for why I make the decisions I make. There have been long bouts of time in my life where I have developed a relationship with God. God and I have grown together. It is from His Power that I may see with clarity the existing order of things. And, it is from His trust that I may act in response to the existing of order of things to make them continuously transpose into a new yet same order. He is the transcendental being which harbors the unique essense of all things and the unique painting containing all things. He witnesses all, and upon and before witnessing, He understands. Let me be with Him when decisions are to be made. 

The proto-atheists presume that God is an individual aesthetic that has no place in public proceedings. So then, I ask, from where do the proto-atheists derive their discernment, which they then express publicly?  If they did achieve it from some truths which transcend humanity, while claiming that they understand it fully enough to speak with authority, then they are only with their own creation, and God is not with them.  If it is not from the Ultimate Witness and Creator that is God, then where do they achieve it from? If they achieve it from elsewhere, what is there to say of them? If they derive their discernment from books whose authors they do not know intimately, then do they not objectify humanity's appearance then idolize it? If they derive their discernment from the politicians, then do they not objectify humanity's appearance then idolize it? If they derive their discernment from the bombastic and self-assured social analysts, then do they not idolize humanity's appearance then idolize it? Where on this Earth can they derive their discernment from that does not objectify and idolize what is complex? And, the great disaster in objectifying and idolizing, is then forgetting that one has done so in the first place, while simultaneously referring to the object of idolatry for constant authority over others."

"Do you not do this with God?"

"If God is objectified and idolized, he is no longer God.  I am sure in my communications with Him. For He does not coddle me with immediate answers to questions. All that He says is too powerful for me to comprehend immediately. He is the horizon which I struggle to see over; and He is the ultimate confidante who sees beyond everything I say, someone greater than what I say. And not only this, but He is incapturable in words. As a limit approaches a value, words can only fine-tune his presence; which is infinitely fine-tunable.  Thus when I speak I do not hope to successfully capture God; I do not hope to successfully capture discernment or truth. Let me speak correctly by being internally in communication with the way of things. Let me speak correctly by remembering the suffering and wonder of humanity which He has allowed me to see. Should the results of this speech be logically incoherent, then let there be a more complex attempt at a thought lying behind them. Let my mistakenness give birth to new insights. Let my speech move others not to know my words, but to know themselves more. Let me be disagreed with. Let me be agreed with. But let there be a greater force which goes beyond disagreement and agreement and unifies humanity's subjective objectivism and objective subjectivism into a complete moment which can lead into the next." 

The microphone was approached. "How is it that you are not hypocritical?"

"Must I answer this question in earnest seriousness? Evaluating the strength of my word is not a group activity. Self-evaluations are a private reflection for my intimate moments with God. 

Furthermore, I must be cautious of accepting the suggestion of hypocriticism as an indicator of it. What you look for in others, you manifest within yourself. And what you harbor within yourself, you look for in others. So for anyone to approach me with questions about hypocriticism, fraud, or apathy, I must assume that they are struggling with those aspects in themselves. Thus it is only proper to provide a guide to them.  

To you, I say this. Have glee if you have not been hypocritical. If you suspect you have been, delve into the waters of self-reflection, and see where the strength of your spirit washes you on the other shore."