"I just can't remember how the story ends," said Olive. "It has the potential to end like the U.S. election ended in 1932, that ended with Roosevelt's election to the White House. The people gave themselves a victory by putting Roosevelt into a position where he could help the people to fulfill their dream of creating a New World for themselves. The story of the kingdom and the sage also has the potential to end like the Renaissance ended, that was destroyed when the war philosophers of Venice gained dominance and created a chain of wars that lasted for eighty years and ended up destroying half the population of Europe. That's when cities of a hundred thousand are reduced to just a few thousand and entire village were simply wiped off the map as though they had never existed. If such a thing happened in the kingdom the people might remember the sage just as some pioneers remembered the Renaissance in the pains of their dying world during the Thirty Years War. Would this kind of ending be the right ending for my story?" she asked.
"If I were to write the story," I said to Olive, "I would give the people in my story enough wisdom, so that they would find it in their heart to support the sage, regardless of the hardships involved."
"But would this be realistic, Peter?" asked Olive.
"It all depends on what realistic means," I replied. "From a scientific standpoint, a victorious humanist ending would be realistic. In fact, it would be the only realistic answer. If I were to write the ending, I would describe the people as being willing to make the needed sacrifices when those sacrifices are necessary to protect their civilization and with it their own life, since civilization is the foundation of a modern people's very existence. Everyone's physical existence depends on its functioning. Why shouldn't the people in the story be able to understand this?"
"Historically, this kind of understanding has never been achieved," Olive countered me. "Only a very few daring souls stood up against the banks prior to 1345, at which point the whole thing collapsed and created such a catastrophe that the entire European economy collapsed with it. Of course, you know the outcome of that. People became so weak by starvation that the Black Death plaque wiped out half the population in a short period of time. There weren't even enough people left alive to bury the dead, in some places. Only many years later did the people begin to realize that the wealth of society is not in its money, but in its productive capacity as human beings, in its creativity, and its industry. If they had known this earlier, they would have protected their civilization. But they didn't know that. And we are not any better of today than they were then."
"Dante Aligheri could see the writing on the wall," I countered Olive. "He could foresee a catastrophe unfolding two centuries before it happened. He warned the people. He became a political activist. He was exiled from Florence, his home city, because of this. But this didn't deter him. He became the moral poet of world renown for which he is still honored. He literally created the Italian language, to tell his story. He did this by collecting the most beautiful spoken dialects that he could find, to build his poetry on the grandest possible platform for an advanced type of thinking as could be created. The Renaissance might never have happened had Dante not created the linguistic foundation for it, and a moral, scientific, and spiritual foundation as well. His trilogy, the Divine Comedy, became a milestone in the history of humanist development. History also tells us that Dante received wide spread support in his long-term efforts for creating his New World, though he didn't live long enough to see it what became the Renaissance. So you see, Olive it can be done, and it has been done."
"People say that Dante was exceptionally bright," Olive replied. "He certainly was that by today's standard."
"But he wasn't that in reality," I replied to Olive. "Was Dante not a human being? And the people today, are they not likewise human beings?"
"Our modern society has become a society of dedicated actors in a very bad play," said Olive, "and they have begun to live that role. They even love it. They are playing that role for a few worthless pennies, and for a few worthless promises. Now you say that you want to tell them: Don't live that way? Forget your dream! Make painful sacrifices to protect the real world in which you actually live! They won't do it, Peter, for as long as they live in their dream world."
"Maybe that is why all the great reverse paradigm shifts in history occurred in the wake of great catastrophes," I replied, "that jolted people out of their dream world, back to reality. That is why we had the Thirty Years War, and World War One and Two, and the Cold War, and the mess that we have today. My point is that we have come to the end of that road. That is why I would write the story of that kingdom in a manner in which the sage wins and becomes king, and becomes the builder of a New World. The Old World is finished. Nothing can be built on it. I realize that my ending would represent a great, revolutionary advance for humanity, but if this would come to pass, it wouldn't be another dream, because I know such an ending is possible whether one can find a historic precedent or not."
"Actually, it has to be that way, because the alternative is unthinkable," Olive agreed.
"Besides, what point is there in writing about a failed ending?" I asked. "We have seen too many failed endings in history when vast numbers of people perished as the result of their failures."
"Still, Peter, I might be inclined to write the story with a failed ending for that very reason," said Olive after a few moments of silence. "Writing the story that way reflects the principle of the classical drama. In the form of the classical drama you set up a situation that can have horrendous consequences for people to learn, which can be avoided if the right actions are taken. These actions would require a strong stand for higher principles that lie above the fog of conventional perception and the axioms of so-called 'save living.' Thus, as the drama unfolds the right actions, which everyone knows should be taken, are not taken in the dram, for reasons of small-minded thinking. As the end result, everyone dies."
"Isn't the story that we have before us a bit more complex than that?" I asked. "The resolution of our story can only be achieved on the basis of two higher principles that appear contradictory to one another, but must be drawn together as one in order to elevate a person. That's too much to illustrate with a classical drama. I would rather show an ending that illustrates the rigors of the necessary scientific processes that can accomplish what must be accomplished for the story to end in victory."
"You are talking about the principles of universal love and universal sovereignty, right?" Olive interrupted.
"Right!" I repeated. "Who understands these today? A person might say: I am a sovereign individual. I choose not to break my back so that the sage can become king. I refuse to believe that this is the only option we have to save our world."
I suggested to Olive if I were to write the ending of her story in that manner, the story would end with the kingdom going to hell, and no one reading that story would be helped by such an ending. "Indeed, right now the world is staged around this kind of ending, and no one sees a way out. We have financial and economic piracy on a huge scale becoming evermore rampant around the world. The world has become a giant Roman pantheon of sovereign pirates that loot humanity under the protection of the law to the point that the economies disintegrate worldwide. In parallel to that we have another Roman pantheon of war mongrels, which each in his own way lights matches everywhere to set the world on fire at will. We need to have our story to end in such a way that the reader walks away with a clear understanding of the principles that can turn this mad situation around. We need to establish the mental platform that uplifts the idea of sovereignty unto the platform of a higher universal principle, a community of principle that is contrary to forming a Roman pantheon. Only then, when we can manage to write this process into the story, can we let the story end in hell. Then the reader might understand how to prevent the same tragedy in real life, and becomes motivated to fight for it no matter what it takes. I think this can be accomplished when we bring the principles of universal love and universal sovereignty together into an indivisible singularity. That's the process that has built our civilization. At this higher platform, the principle of universal love defines the nature of universal sovereignty, and the principle of universal sovereignty defines the nature of universal love. On this interlinked platform we are finally save, individually and collectively. On this platform, love and the respect for sovereignty, which are really one and the same, complement each other, and thus we enrich one another's existence as a matter of principle."
|| - page index -
|| - chapter index -
|| - Exit -