When faced with the endemic uncertainties throughout the world, there must be a solution which is, in itself, impractical and dubious, that would counter these uncertainties and bring them into focus. Previous experience cannot be referred to, as uncertainty, by definition, is something out of the norm and experience only deals with what has been normalized and presented as fact. There is a moment in history that represents a turning point, a significant marker, which makes that particular moment historical. Therefore, change is the requisite and the guide for causing a difference in all of experience. This change may not be individually recognized, but by looking back on certain changes ideas are necessarily born. These ideas may follow a certain practicality, yet they did not begin as such. They were mere conceptions thriving on the adversity of the times and, through that, reached a certain plateau; an effectual solution whether in accordance with the fairness of all, or only those originally affected. It then becomes incumbent upon the change-makers, of whom many are reliant, to enforce those changes for the improvement of all subjects involved. These momentous times in which, seemingly, the entire world is being psychologically manipulated and slowly transformed into warring tribes taken back into their primal stages, have been hampered by those “practical” minds whose attempts at normalcy have only brought on more conflict and destruction. Certain measures, whether draconian or merely put into place to create a neutral zone where a fresh approach can be hatched, are sorely needed when the prospect of inner and outer tumult has been brought into play. This point in history, this era marked by unabated terror and overt hatred, is the beginning of a series of changes forged by the threat of its own unravelling into chaos and loss of control. It is the moment to steer destiny and offer a practical solution to the impractical course of uncertainty.
Is space a composite of simple substances or is it its own indivisible substance? All things existing in space are, by themselves, the property of space. They are also determinants of space in that they hold positions or points which are the conclusive composites of their finite construction and can only exist in space by using it to project themselves into existence. If space were only an external intuition, in that it holds for every subject the same determinations of being, how could it be that it isn’t a composite of simple substances in that it is composed of what is present and what is void? Even as intuitively grasped it still possesses qualities which can be divided, for nothing can exist in space if space didn’t separate something from nothing. That in itself is a divisible property. Even the non-presence of a thing is a presence in that it makes possible the presence of something. In order for something to exist it must be in complete opposition to its not-existing. This is the beginning of the composition of all substances, space included. They are determined, simply, by what they are in accordance to what they are not. Space, as the external realm where consciousness avails itself to itself and, by doing so, divides all things into their own substances, is both a composition of all things and an infinitely divided part of itself, in that it has no beginning or end of which to be determined. It can only be measured by its parts which, by themselves, privatize their standing in space. Moreover, the attempt to measure space is, in itself, taking part in space, therefore it would be impossible to divide itself from itself. It can only divide those substances that exist within it and, by its own infinite properties, divide all things infinitely.
As power subsides all other conditions rush in to fill the void. There is little difference separating one powerful entity from another. However, it is only that entity which holds the reins and steers ahead into the unknown which can claim the mantle of enforcing itself upon the many. And through that regulatory aspect, that polar region of command, other things must follow and adjust. It is the synthetic construction of a chain of leadership and its purpose is to adhere and not overtly dominate. The mantle of domination and legion of dictatorial power is short-lived in a country based on the freedom of its citizenry. It cannot go on existing as long as certain elements strive to react and replace it with something contrary to the dominating spirit of the people. That type of leadership is better served within the limited concepts of a political ideology which really has no ideology but is merely an open cesspool of ingredients cultivated within a landscape of unorthodox irregularity. The concept of leadership cannot survive within a country where every single issue, down to the most microscopic element, is met with some form of regulation. Freedom abhors the implementations of rules which, by their particular nature, infringe on the basic understanding of reality and the underlying concepts which contain the attributes of the qualities of freedom. In order to stay free, the ideologies of the scant few, which are restrictive and complicated, and which, for political purposes, are addressed so that every patch of possible support is cultivated and conserved, a neutrality must be reached; a ground in which commonality can prosper and liberty maintained. A community is a community only by surrendering the dogmatic stands and vitriol which threaten a peaceful existence. A house divided cannot stand. Neither can a country survive if it is structured by uneven supports which bend this way and that. Its foundation relies upon a sturdy ground and not a ground that trembles with the shock waves of an underlying catastrophe caused by a confounding contrariness lurking beneath the surface. There was a time when differences were settled amicably for the benefit of all. Presently very few seem interested in finding agreeable grounds. They would rather pursue, to the very limits, policies and projects that serve only themselves and their narrow interests so their own spirits are fulfilled and nurtured, and those of others would stay unworthy and unappreciated.
Through pure reason we can ascribe a reality to something even if we have no conception of it. In other words, a thing may exist as substance and we can consider it in whatever form it may avail itself, but, in its unity and definition, we can know only its possibilities and not its truth. Therefore, the procedure of reason is a synthetic unity drawn from, and necessitated, by its very nature and not, in fact, what its reason for being is, but only that it possesses reason. Pure reason connects time and space in that it provides the movement of itself in its unity and, through its possibilities, which are not necessarily known, forms the transcendental dialectical conceptions of the subject that contain no particular truth but its reasoning in general. This procedure of reason forms a series of conditions which necessarily contain self-contradiction. Reason is not reason without the force of its own negation. Within the synthetic unity that determines reality there exists a neutral corridor that separates all things and substances. Within this realm, concealed from consciousness but making consciousness conscious of itself, pure reason allows for the experience of reality and, by the division of the extension of substance, space, and time, this relation to being forms the subjective conditions in which life itself takes on a reason for being.
Reason is the bastard child of judgment. It’s origin, unknown. Its existence, tainted. It thrives on unconditioned conclusions given conditionally, feeding off premises absent of logic and substance. What it lacks in truthfulness it replaces with assumptions. These assumptions follow from the imaginative despair which infiltrates vast numbers of subjects who, in their frenzied attachment to existential causes camouflaged by ideals and grand visions, become undone by the mere mention of an opposing viewpoint or an alternative “reason” which, by its very existence, unleashes a propensity to swear and slur; a drive to destroy and dismantle; a relentless passion to remove experience from logic and replace it with a world free from any other notions than their own. Their reason is opposed to any other form of judgment. Their logic, antithetical to the truth that equality is the privilege of all, and happiness, in whatever form it exists, should not be subject to opinion nor forced to be in conjunction with their beliefs. Their reasoning, by all measures, is a conclusion of judgments borne by the bastardized notions of “what should be without question” rather than “what should stay unquestioned” regarding the free choice of others and their own “personal” beliefs and desires.
When faced with reason that doesn’t reflect their illusions, the forces that pretend to be unified, combining their principles with mere conceptions, casting judgments which can only be defined as inconclusive, project themselves as the images of darkness and despair. They seem to marinate in their own juices of indefinable taste and substance and confine themselves behind a black curtain of gloom, while leading others who trip over their own obsession of blind servitude, into an abyss of confusion and doubt. By the effects that emerge from directionless causes, the absence of understanding and lack of justifiable purpose, more uncertainty and fear penetrates the minds and imaginations of the many while leaving logic to dissolve and decay, and purposely resurrected as an impending apocalypse of imminent destruction.
The divide between the possible and the impossible has spread beyond conception and taken the form of self-contradiction. Within this realm of denial where logic tends to slink off into obscurity, and ideas, once the bedrock of a successful and enriched society, become blurred and diminished, a new form of governance has taken shape; one which is delinquent in all precepts of ideology, truthfulness, prominence, and perseverance. A self-inflicted abhorrence which, by all measures, keeps one beyond the walls of civility and shreds all likelihood of a resurgence and reemergence of popularity. The new negativism, a profoundly contrarian stand that threatens only itself, is the Politics of Nothingness; the belief that images of obstruction, cries of illegitimacy, circulating conspiracy, fear, and lies, is the new path to redemption and to the retaking of the hearts and souls of the people who have crossed sides and pledged their support to fresh leadership. This mode of non-conformity and refusal to take part is the most vulgar stand that a so-called party of the people can adopt. It evokes an image of a sinking ship, its crew unleashing all lifeboats and choosing to go down into the depths because being swallowed up by the sea is better than waiting it out and hoping for rescue. They lost sight of land long ago, but they held the belief that it was always “out there” waiting to take them back. But their sense of direction failed and even the navigator perched dubiously in the crow’s nest, could not lead them to their destination. She also lost sight of the earthly islands and leapt from her perch long before the others chose to self-annihilate. The emptiness of their contradiction is widening. The vastness of their mediocrity is on the rise. The Politics of Nothingness is a plan sure to leave them out in the cold and take many of their followers along with them. Those who are clear, concise, and stick to their convictions will remain free and never grow weary of the richness of their beliefs, wherever it may take them. But, it is still better to have a belief in something than an avowed pledge to Nothing.
In order to understand an experience one must first experience the understanding of the experience. It flows from the agreement and opposition within reality when external relations are free of contradiction and the schema, under which cognition operates, carries through to the understanding the propositions of cause and effect. The experience is the result of the confluence of matter and form. The parts of the experience are the matter. The result, or the experience itself, the form. The objects within the experience, the conditions under which the sensibilities react, is the ongoing representation of the pure understanding which, through the negation of the positive and the affirmation of the negative, produces an experience which is harmonious in its externality and, likewise, fulfills the possibility which had lied dormant and has now burst forward into the present. The complex of all relations, which are only external, are representations of the objects of the understanding, and are the substantive structures which, in their form are understood and produce the experience of which the understanding has imparted.
The understanding which we have, which follows not from experience, but from an a priori element inherent in every being, as to its core and to its concordance with all things that affect it is, nevertheless, formed through the very experiences which evolve from these understandings. In other words, experience and understanding surround each other such as two circles perfectly aligned. Any deviation from one line which may drift out of proportion to experience is immediately drawn back into the understanding. On the other hand, any understanding that becomes misaligned, that does not coincide logically with a possible experience, is immediately redrawn and reshaped by the experience so that both understanding and experience are in perfect unison. One cannot precede the other. Alternately, the one is the other and are always as one, which prevents itself from drifting into a void, an area where reasonable thought cannot exist; a region where things as they are remain to themselves in a negative state to what the understanding can experience and what experience can understand. This assertion of itself upon itself, through this dual activity that is the process by which beings cope with an external world and not drift off into a blank space, into their own negation or contradiction, is the law which guides consciousness through its infinite becoming and presents the inherent force of reason through all possibilities that follow from experience and understanding.
There is a continuous succession to everything. Nothing takes place which is not, in some way, related to a past event (or cause). Change is necessary and carries with it the next change, and so on. In government, when the ruling class begins to rule outside the norms of a widely accepted mode of behavior, they get pulled back in and find themselves no longer as powerful; no longer as the focal point and, moreover, no longer as the purveyor of rules and policies which control the masses. By all respects, they’ve been “cut out” and by the virtues of a free society, made to relinquish power to another. This premise is the foundation of a free society and holds together the social compact that preserves freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of one’s desires which need not be questioned nor undermined. It is what holds together a free society and establishes its permanence. Those who are fervently opposed to a peaceful change of power, or those of influence, uttering lies and phrases that diminish the change, or taint the exchange with their own displeasure, are contaminants of freedom who find satisfaction in their refusal to accept the changes. They, therefore, poison the mix of the community. No one is saying that beyond the transition there cannot exist voices of discontent or differences of opinion. The point is, first, to show the world that a peaceful change is possible, that a country can come together even under the most disconcerting of events. Undoubtedly, within this change are the elements of the next change and, of course, those elements which will follow. What influences the next transition of power is the success or failure of new laws and agendas. The outcome of these decisions control the future and lay the framework for either expansion or destruction. No person can predict what will happen, nor can they, with any amount of intelligence, prove who is best to lead the country going forward. We are not only at the mercy of ourselves, but also the rest of the world. What is vital is the foundation in which we build upon. That foundation is supported by the free will of its members and their power to turn back, to replace, and in their own minds, to repair.