To seek out the origins of evolution, that is, organic evolution, chemical and molecular processes, and not the physical forces that make the organic systems possible, isn’t a search for an origin of the universe or how it came to exist, for that cannot be known. The distinction between the processes of atomic force, inertia, light, gravity, etc, and those of organic systems such as metabolism, mitosis, nerve stimulation and response, adaptation, is that the latter relies on the former states and processes to become active. Whereas the universe itself does not result from any precedent conditions, its characteristics are static in that they remain unchanged at their elementary levels. At such a subatomic level the attributes of a particle are not determined by smaller compositions which allow it to exist, in fact, the particle (and its components) is the smallest observable entity that exists, and any further advances in organic growth and evolution result from this initial condition. So to ask how the particle evolved is not the same as asking how the molecule evolved, as the former has no observable beginning. For this the postulate frequently called ‘God’ is used, but is indeed useless, and in no way a progress toward answering the question: “why the universe at all?” In fact, the idea of ‘God’ is no longer entitled to the status of a concept in philosophy. It is an empty answer to a pointless question. So I ask: “if God exists, then what?” Such a possibility has no influence on our existence. It is no direction for existence. It would be a truth that made no difference if it weren’t true. Consequently it only becomes a concept in metaphysics, has no existential value, and is used only as an expediency to promote political and emotional complacency in human existence. In shorter words, it is an exercise of control over a naturally chaotic human social convention; civilization. It is an object to induce fear and control over men by those who have the power to exploit and subordinate. “God” was invented to civilize humanity by those lusting for power. We will save this matter for a later discussion.
Concerning the origin of the universe, a mistake is made when one assumes that an observable teleological design denotes a cause for origin. Likewise, assuming that evolution is purposeful and not merely an unnecessary and contingent feature of the underlying physical processes of the universe is another mistake. That the states and forces of the physical universe are intelligible does not mean that it must have evolved from a simpler state that had increased in complexity and composition from a once formless and raw material with a potential for an organized and regulated existence, but only if caused and necessary. This reasoning can be applied when observing organic evolution only, as it is caused by the precedent conditions existing in the universe. The universe itself, on the other hand, can not be intelligible as far as causes are concerned. To ask how the universe came to exist appears to be a question similar to the question of organic evolution, but in reality they are quite different questions. One can contemplate an existence only when one can discern its causes, such as in the case of organic evolution. The reason for the existence of the universe can not be fathomed. We can literally watch evolution occur. We cannot observe a universe as nonexistent, then existing by way of a cause. We simply find ourselves in it. How it came about is impossible to answer. Let us then deal with what we can know.
The fundamental error in philosophy is the assumption that life was necessary in the universe. This error is rooted in the misinterpretation of the distinctions between physical and biological being. While the former is observably necessary, the latter is not. That is, there must be a universe for there to evolve life, but there need not be life for a universe to exist.
How did this grand mistake take place? Is it a matter of lacking the intellect to know this? In some cases yes, in others, no, it is a matter of dishonesty. The error originated in the human consciousness and its many degrees of intelligence. Some subjects of which were simply too stupid to understand took the word of those deceivers, those who knew quite well but willingly lied, as an authority. And why is this possible? I will tell you. In our case there is no consequence for lying about the nature of the universe. Is it not, then, the right of such a clever creature to believe what he wants about his position in the universe? With man the universe has created the greatest of all paradoxes!
Nietzsche once opened a chapter with a succinct statement, in a single moment he approached, pondered, and resolved the entire movement of what I consider the task of philosophy to be, this business of finding truth. It was a simple statement, perhaps too simple, too abrupt, for those anxious deceivers who possess the vanity and bloated self importance to cry out: “no, this isn’t all there is to it, there must be more, I am not satisfied unless I struggle, perform, and eventually solve a problem, for then I have been useful and in service!” This is analogous to a child messing up his room so he’ll have something to do, clean it up. But this is no problem, nor is it something to be avoided by efforts and work. It is to be endured, waited out, a destination that, if anything, keeps one occupied simply by looking forward to it with inescapable inertia, rather than at it as if it were a mirage that might not be what it appears, an image that might rely on what one chooses to see, to be a reality. With this pretense the philosopher can pretend that what he sees might not be what it is, as the distance is still too far, the sun too hot and bright for tired squinting eyes, the view too obscure through the fog and precipitation of modern thinking, dialectics and metaphysics, deceivers, that it is possible he sees a false image. And what does he wish not to see, not to admit, not to endure? What is the most obvious and simple conclusion to the puzzle (is it even a puzzle?) of existence if one looks for it?
That our star will one day grow cold and we shall have to die.
But what then did the task of philosophy belong to so far? It belonged to eyes which blink, which look away, which detest the sight before them, which can’t take the heat and struggle to remedy what they believe is the sight and not the eyes which see it. Everywhere philosophy has become devious in its attempt to escape the final truth which it had discovered; that there has been no such thing as philosophy so far. Nothing initiates this false philosophy that isn’t directly, though covertly, founded upon man’s desire to rub his eyes in the presence of a horrible sight he wasn’t prepared to see, and to try to change the image before him. His every concern evolves one way or another, from his anticipation of death, meaninglessness, and the end. His task is to pretend that these things are not real, to pretend that activity has reason, cause, and justification. He lies, but doesn’t he deserve to? Who told him these things, who put him here, what is expected of him by that chaos which created him, what ought he to do, this stupid and eager creature? Perhaps it is merely a question of which eyes are looking. I have never seen such ugly sights. I’ve never felt obligated to hurt before this chaos. How this vision was terrible has always been beyond me and my sharp eyes. That I am a higher type of human is evident in my tolerance for hot light. The light is bright, almost overwhelming, let your eyes dilate, my friends.
What is the greatest of ironies? That the universe demands, that it makes man with a right, a duty, to make promises (Nietzsche). That it expects responsibility from one of its effects. A creature that did not ask to be created is not obligated to do anything. Was the universe prepared for this? Did it mistake us as a cause? Did it expect us to make choices for our will? No. This is the work of tired eyes, deceivers, wise men, wisdom in general. Again, pretending to be in control. Calm down, my trembling friends, there is no such thing as remorse, hatred, duty, expectation. You create these concepts when rubbing your eyes. The view is empty and free, what is it that you see? You see the fog. Clear your distorted eyes of hope and deceit. Your stare should invite this hot light, for it shines eternally, and makes shadows out of those who do not dance and sit still and crippled. The waves will breach your darkness if you let them, if you have courage. Are you afraid?
And your will, your conscience. What is that? Is it a movement that brings punishment and consequences if practiced wrongly? No. A “wrong” will is no will. Is it a movement that brings rewards when practiced rightly? No. A “right” will is no will. What am I saying- right and wrong are symptoms of those who are deceived, who are called guilty by the bite of conscience (Nietzsche), the disease of duty, responsibility, freewill, making promises, civilization and its institutions. Willing knows nothing of this; conscience is a fabricated surface, an error mistaken as a cause. Let the will burst forth in ecstasy through you. You are the puppet which dances, alas, are you a shadow of remorse and shame or a wave of light? Are you pulling strings or are you pulled? Is the show over when you say it is? Decidedly not, you are merely a dancer full of straw and stuffing. You haven’t manufactured anything but your own remorse. And you ask why. That isn’t a question that can be asked by an effect. Only causes can give explanations. Know what you are and what you cannot be.
What do I know about laws? I know they are tendencies that are mistaken as necessities. I know that the ‘way it is’ isn’t the way ‘it might be’ a moment later. What shifts has no consistency, it cannot expect obedience if it is moving and changing. To obey is to be motionless, inactive, steady, and uncreative. A law is the death of becoming and creation.
Have you found my secret yet, do you see where I have put you? I have set you free and condemned you at the same time. You will realize that this is no solution for what your eyes have seen. I do not provide solutions for problems that do not exist. I bring Visine for your red eyes. Until now you were looking through tears. Do you see clearly now, or do you prepare to argue against me in the same desperation with which you despised yourself and your place in the universe? Do I give nihilism and razor blades to suicidal maniacs with weary eyes? No, I place armor over their wrists and take razor blades away from them. Only often are my efforts more painful than the blades, but if you survive, you will emerge stronger than ever before. I make warriors and creators out of weaklings and decadents, out of accidents.