Letters to Elisha
An Introduction to the Spirit of Philosophy
2020
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated to my mentors, who remain anonymous like me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Light)
I cannot trap the light
And hold it in a cage
To give to you who dwells
In a cave of grief and rage
-----
Feel the walls around you
Strong stones that hide the day
Know the bonds that tie you
Destroy the jar of clay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Dear Elisha,
You write to me, asking a question that has been asked in all generations.
“How should one live?”
However, this question was in past times a purely philosophical or religious question; today it is a common question. It seems that no one knows how to truly live correctly.
The common answer is well known. A man should strive to the highest point on the hierarchy. But this response is rubbish for us. Perhaps those living in a clear hierarchy could swallow that trickster answer, but we don’t live in an obvious pyramid now. Each man creates his own hierarchy these days, and elects himself as king, as it were. Beyond the impossibility of this choice, in truth, this is precisely the foolishness the wise men of old chose to abandon. Socrates found no greater pleasure than calling a tyrant miserable.
And so we enter a labyrinth of choices. How shall we proceed? Should we introspect and see what we intuit to be best? Perhaps we should seek some authority to guide and point us in the direction of a proper life. Or perhaps rather like Socrates, should we take a dialectic approach of rational inquiry?
All in all, this leads us to the first conclusion. The way to live requires one of inquiry, or at the very least some reflection. Perhaps much good luck would suffice as well. This may not be the end destination, and it is possible we shall conclude that ignorance is bliss. Nevertheless, if we are already in a place of reflection, let us praise the stage we stand upon.
Sincerely,
Alpha
2
Dear Elisha,
You didn’t quite appreciate my little barb at the end of the letter and so you ask me:
“How can a man live to the age of forty and still not have a concise guide for living? In Greece they exhorted ‘Know Thyself’ and ‘Nothing in Excess’.
You are shocked (although perhaps somewhat sarcastically,) that men as myself today have no star to guide them. And so we seem in your eyes like drunkards wandering this way and that.
Well Elisha, it’s a good thing I’ve affection for you as well as patience enough to make up for your lack of it. Many of my mentors would have promptly tossed you out the door for such offenses.
Alas, you couldn’t be more right, and yet more wrong. It is true that I am still a seeker with no definite path, but I am far from your drunk as East from West. No, not a drunk, but rather a cartographer am I. But how you are right is less important. Listen well boy, to how you are wrong!
Just because I play chess with you doesn’t mean that I am on your level of skill. And even if I were to lose it would not mean that you are a better player than I. It only means that I am playing a different game and my goal is far beyond the confines of the eight by eight board you limit your sight to.
If it seemed I was only reflecting your question rather than quoting others’ maxims like yourself, you are not to come to the conclusion that I have none in my possession. What good would these maxims be for a child like you who has yet to bleed for them? Do you imagine wisdom to be a magical incantation? Perhaps like those silly childish fairy tales where some artifact gives its holder supernatural powers? Such foolishness and idiocy even I did not have at your age.
Listen well boy, wisdom is like strength. You ask me to make you strong and then insult me for not flexing my muscles for you to admire! Well, training you and showing my strength are very different things, are they not?
But the analogy ends there. Because while a bodybuilder can show his physique to all, wisdom cannot be appreciated but by the wise. And this you are not.
I hope my light rebuke stings you, but not enough to abandon the honey. Everything worthwhile has a price.
I trust that you have learnt at least one lesson from this letter. The wisdom of men stays hidden.
Sincerely,
Alpha
3
Dear Elisha,
I’m glad to see you undeterred by rebuke. A man who falls from one blow is hardly a man. You write to me:
“I understand that seeking for oneself is often considered a necessity for a good life, yet I am skeptical of this. Although I do see that for myself it is at least a necessary stage. But surely this seeking aspires to its own demise. A suicidal aspiration is the spirit of any question. Yet you deny me the answer; to where does the seeking lead to?”
Well said, young boy. But based on a gross misunderstanding of how one should live. You’ve yet to understand that in the depths of the search itself lies the answer.
The philosopher’s questions are not separate from himself. They are not like arrows slung from his bow, rather he is a sun and these are his rays. The questions flow from his essence. Let me explain.
What is a question? It is the denial of knowledge. It is a hack at the jungle to clear your path. It is a negation and drawing of one’s attention to the formulated void.
A question is never wrong in the sense that one can’t be in a state of knowing and still truly ask. If one asks, then they have noticed a void in their subjective state. It may be that the assumptions of the question are all false, but that would hardly be a filling up of the void, rather more like a blunt blade hacking at the growth.
This ignorance is dangerous. In fact, as you well know, Socrates was killed for his questions. A question is not only the self knowledge of ignorance. It is also a light shined on the ignorance of others.
When a child asks his father ‘why do we laugh at some jokes?’ he is asking for a deeper understanding of the human and his relation to the world. But the father does not know, more so, he has no patience to inquire. To be frank, he is too weak to address the world or himself. This question is an act of aggression. Children know no expectations to follow, unlike grown men who act as expected. This is their charm. To inquire into reality is much too strong an act of subversion for a weakling.
Deeper yet. A question can repeat an inquiry with a known authoritative answer. We all know what the best form of government is. In fact, all men throughout the ages have consistently known this. And they all agree that the current one is the correct one. To ask this question is an explicit denial of the status quo. It is to demand a justification of a different type than the echo and cries of the rabble. It is an appeal to a mysterious force beyond social consent and conformity.
Do you now see how seeking is a great man’s destiny? What is seeking if not questioning? What is questioning if not a nobility of the soul? The mock-noble separate themselves from others by virtue of riches and force. But the philosopher distinguishes himself by denying the masses control of his thoughts. He climbs a mountain to reach isolation. Alone, he breathes in the crisp mysteries of reason, rather than the foul stench of the commoner.
Sincerely,
Alpha
4
O’ Dear Elisha!
I am glad to read that you have been practicing the simplest and yet most devastating of Socrates’ techniques. You have been cross examining your fellows, interrogating them to see what they know. You’ve found them wanting.
Strangely enough, this fills you with despair, as opposed to the more typical conceit.
“It seems I’ve been fed nursery stories my whole life by people who’ve been told these stories themselves, and the chain lasts forever. No one knows how they started or where they come from…”
No more fellow country men for you! It seems those man made borders no longer enchant you as they did before. Yet neither does the equality of man nor the abolition of divisions between groups seduce your mind. It seems you are beginning to awaken from your winter hibernation. Good boy!
Inquiry into these concepts is no trivial matter. But more than the concepts themselves, there is a lesson to be learnt on the topic of mankind. We are fools! Idiots! Drunkards! Asleep! It takes much effort to exit the state of foolishness. Most men never attempt, and fewer live lives in accordance with wisdom.
Well Elisha, have you got what it takes to live as an exile? If you think disillusion will bring you a multitude of friends and allies, you couldn’t be more wrong. These inquiries will bring not company, but hatred. You will forever be cursed to hate the fools, with their drunken vomit on their tongue. They’ve no drive for truth. And your open eyes will only be repaid with hatred. For you question their beliefs that make them who they are. Loneliness is the reward for an insight on how men are constructed. This mountain of isolation has good air. Cheers!
And if you have bled a bit then you are a vessel. There is room for some drops of wine after spilling out your own putrid blood.
Study this:
Trust none. Not even yourself.
Take this maxim to heart and plant it deeply. Let us see what flowers bloom.
Sincerely,
Alpha
5
Dear Elisha,
You claim that
“People talk so much yet say so little.”
So I’ll take you up to your challenge. Let’s see how this game plays out. I’ll write back some of your inquiries, and add some glosses.
“What is this power of money? I went to the library to see what I could learn on the topic.”
Fools read before they think.
“Is it justified that I am rich just because my father is? Isn’t it unjust for a man to be rich because of his father?”
Yes. Yes.
“There is nothing more frustrating than being forced to act in a world without understanding the meaning of what I do. I am forced to live before I have had the chance to know how!”
Don’t worry. Time solves this problem for all.
“No wonder the world is so broken. Everybody just moves without any premeditation.”
And those that premeditate are those that burn the world down.
“Leisure is a prerequisite for philosophy. If there is no free time to think, there is no free time to think.”
Good.
“Must there be slaves for there to be men who can conceive justice?”
Good.
“How can good be born of evil?”
If good was only borne of good, it seems we would still be waiting.
Dear Elisha, I hope I’ve said much with little. And I hope this letter finds you in good health. Keep on climbing, it’s likely you’ll get there.
Sincerely,
Alpha
6
Dear Elisha,
You seem to have come to a place where you have begun digging deep enough for pain.
“Things that have been taken for granted have now become absurd. I hear reports of how many die of war, how many of our soldiers, and how many of theirs. But why the distinction? Is death less tragic for a human somewhere else?”
And later on you write:
“What does it even mean for me to be who I am? I am heir to this tradition that never asked me if I want to join, but won’t let me leave either. I used to ‘know’ that I am a son, a brother, a citizen of my city and state. I used to ‘know’ my ethnicity. Now, I know what a feeble construction this is. But not that there is nothing, just that the criteria is ridiculous. It is as if we decided to identify with our height, and become a group together for it. Is there anything as ridiculous?”
Why the distinction? Why, if you’ve spoken to enough people it should have become obvious. I believe I told you before that people are fools. Now, the study of foolishness is quite a science in itself, perhaps equal to the study of wisdom. Clearly, this is not the question you ask. Why people think like fools is because we are born as fools and we drink the milk of fools from our mothers’ breasts.
So what is the question you ask then? It is not a question. So let me ask you a better one: Is there a distinction of the value of life of men that can be based on their citizenship? This is a well formulated question. It is one that can begin to be answered. If you wish to express how you feel about something, do it in your journal alone, and don’t waste the time of others.
Let me help you again with the next segment as well.
You seem to have stumbled upon the problem of your identity. This means that you have begun to reflect upon who you are and how you fit into the strata of society. Now, in days past, it was clear to each person where they belonged. A slave is a slave, and a farmer is a farmer, and a king, a king. What could be more simple?
Our times, however, force each man to be a nomad. You cannot be as you were born, whether you like it or not, as we are born of plastic material, destined to be free. This is part of the problem, and why your shock is natural and common to this generation. As each person enters a transitory stage, if that person reflects, they will begin to see their past in a new light. What was once taken for granted is now seen from a new angle. Everything has an arbitrariness attached, as if it could have been different.
I am glad to see that you didn’t fall into the naive trap so many others do. It is all too easy to begin to view yourself as an atomic individual, disconnected from the world. While there is a sense of independence of each man from the rest of the world, it would be ludicrous to pretend that each man is a complete and whole being unto himself. Clearly man is part of a society; the social animal as it were.
To be a brother, a son, and more- all of these identities are relationships. And as a rule, all of our roles are relative to an external reality. If a man is strong, he is strong compared to other men we’ve met, there is no ‘strong’ without the ability to compare multiple men’s strength. If a man is a brother, he has another who would be his sibling. So it should be obvious to you that all of these things you describe yourself with are true. It seemed to me that you were treating the descriptions of man as arbitrary, but they are reflective of reality.
But you did touch on something right, that not everything that is true is important. As you nicely put it, there is a distinction between men that is meaningful, and there are those that are not. I wish you luck as you continue on this path of inquiry.
Sincerely,
Alpha
7
Dear Elisha,
I will not bother quoting your specific question, but rather take the abstraction as worthy of inquiry.
“What is ‘X’?”
This is a question with multiple interpretations, and context here is critical. The question is too amorphous without context to be of any value, and I’d say any philosopher worthy of the title will not ask this ridiculous question without expanding on its meaning.
Imagine I am not a native speaker of your tongue, and I hear you say the word ‘fire’, of which I am unfamiliar. If I ask “What is fire?” a translation to my language would be best. If you do not know that word in my language, you might say something like “That red heat that burns and consumes'', although one who does not know how to say the word fire would hardly be likely to know how to say that. At last, you may wiggle your fingers in an upward rising motion and make the sound of burning to your best ability. If there is a fire near you, you may just point at it.
In this scenario, “What is ‘fire’?” is a way of saying that our man here knows the world, but does not know the conventional word that corresponds to a part of it. Show me that event or object that we designate that word to.
These are questions for a dictionary, and it takes expertise to be able to point to reality using only other words. This however, is not a task of philosophers.
Now, the dictionary has a difficult job, as it must describe how a large population uses a word. Naturally, there are fluctuations amongst individuals, not to mention different groups. Do a scientist and an artist use the words ‘science’ and ‘art’ the same way? There is some common ground, but they certainly diverge as well.
Some philosophers, as they call themselves, work as a psychologist or sociologist of semantics. They ask “What is X?” and search for a group or an individual they believe most qualified to define X and try to discover how they use the word.
Once the speaker of this word is designated, then, there is room for debate via proofs and refutations. But on the designation of the speaker, there seems to be no judge to appeal to. One man says ‘science’ should be defined by scientists of all ages, the other only to those in the present century, perhaps a third would argue that the patrons of science should be analyzed. It doesn’t help that neologisms abound, and words aren’t constant enough throughout history. The only thing to do here is to clarify who one is asking, and much ink would be saved if authors would only transparently relay this simple and obvious point.
I don’t think I have to prove to you that not only does reality lead to descriptions, but that our descriptions of our language and how we use it impact reality, either by changing how we perceive or how we act.
And so, there are crafty men who ask “What is X?” and mean to influence the world more than to faithfully describe it. They often have the facts of the past against them and they often have loyal followers as well, in a manner that those who work hard on describing reality don’t. (Don’t be fooled by those followers of the dictionary men, thinking that point to be a challenge to my claim. They say ‘Philosophy is a dictionary” and gather a following to that statement, and are guilty of ignoring how the word philosophy has been used in every other time and place!)
Of these men who prescribe rather than describe, there are those that are easier to catch, and those that are difficult. The professionals tend to bring many historic proofs, as if that is what they cared about, often distorting facts and ignoring anything that doesn’t fit their agenda. As in many places, conviction helps the job get done well. One who believes he is only describing or knows he is prescribing is more successful than the man who is in doubt as to the nature of his project.
But there is a fourth ‘What is X?’ and this one is royal.
First of all the question of ‘X’ is not placed in a vacuum, but rather is placed in context. What is ‘X’ in comparison with not-x, with y with z and more.
The purpose is not to describe reality, but to discover reality. The question is not on the word, but on the world. I seek to recognize a new concept that exists in the world, or to find the underlying truths. It is to ask ‘what is movement?’ in order to discover Newtonian laws of gravity. It is to ask ‘what is justice?’ in order to find the guide for our life and society. We do not ask what virtue is in order to know how people use the word, not even how saints use it. We ask what virtue is in order to know how to live, and the word is a placeholder for a concept that we do not clearly grasp.
Now this one is very different from the crafty liars or fools I described before. Because they pretend to be giving a definition on the basis of conventional authority. They say ‘look! This is how that man uses this word! So should you use it too”. But here, we do not care how others use this word, because the word is just a means of communication for a concept that we want to understand. We want to know how the pieces of the world interact, and which frames are better for understanding it. It is a trifle if you call it a hippopotamus or a horse, I want to know how to ride it!
I do not know how to present this more clearly than I have, but I’ve noticed people have a difficult time understanding it. For once, I will be humble and admit that this may be a fault of mine.
I hope this will help you as you read those new books of yours. I’m sure you’ll recognize charlatans, dictionaries and philosophers, and many men with multiple masks.
Sincerely,
Alpha
8
Dear Elisha,
Your previous letter was interesting. You seem to have been reading much, and this would make me proud if not for the necessary offset that you’ve been thinking little. You should at least read my previous letter again.
It is all too common to confuse an ass and a philosopher, so common, that most people don’t think they ever do it. I’ll call the asses scholars, as that title is one they have toiled hard to deserve, and will hopefully help them be less offended by this important distinction. It is also true that some scholars are philosophers, although no asses are.
A scholar is one who is concerned with what philosophers think. He stays awake burning oil and straining his eyes to read the great works of others, attempting to pierce through their words into the inner thoughts of the author. This is all fine and good. Yet, the scholar sees his mission as knowing what the other thinks. His pride is in his mouth and pen, speaking the words of others.
If this doesn’t make it clear how much of a fool a scholar may be, then it is only a sign of confusing philosophy for history. A scholar is essentially a historian, with a drive to know the opinions of others.
Granted, this is no easy task. It is no secret that philosophers have secrets. And so, this demands clarity of mind and a sensitive and powerful intellect. If a scholar is so tasked, would it be any surprise that he is admired? Nevertheless, it is important to rank him under the philosopher.
A philosopher wants truth, nothing less. If it is in a book, he cares not whether it is authored by an outcast or a celebrated genius. Anything can be a source for wisdom, be it dialogue through letters with a superior, or speech with a young child. But even as he would accept truth from all places, until he has conquered the truth completely he considers the chase on. Just because he knows the words, and perhaps even intuits the truth of a parcel of wisdom, he does not consider the job done. It must be so that he can proclaim the wisdom as if he himself were the discoverer alone. No authority but reason has any value. Is it truer from the mouth of Aristotle than from the mouth of an ape?
And so, when a philosopher reads and when a scholar reads, they are reading quite differently. A philosopher reads in order to learn about reality, the book is a passage. A scholar reads to know what the philosopher thinks, the book is the destination. As can be clear, many a philosopher is a scholar, and knows the words of his predecessors. But knowing what was said is not knowing truth. Even knowing what was thought is not knowing truth. Remember this, dear Elisha, and you will be saved from the traps of false pride.
Now, it should also be evident which of the two gains more prestige. Who would want a man who knows truth? But a scholar can quote and even explain the most difficult passages of the most inarticulate philosophers. Of course he will be celebrated. Of course all will ‘see’ his wisdom. But a philosopher sees nothing of the sort. He wants to know after the explanation if it is true.
Hence, I admonish you to put down the books. I would quote tens of men greater than me who say the same, if not for the irony involved. Read slower, think more. If you cannot do this you have no hope as a philosopher, although you’ve shown your ability to be a scholar.
I hope this rebuke will make you a better man.
Alpha
9
Dear Elisha,
You’ve made some points worth addressing.
“All language is a product of centuries of tradition. Why are these symbols acceptable, yet the specific names and terminology of philosophers not?”
In the reality of the human condition, there is quite a distinction to be made. Symbols represent thought, and the thoughts we try to make in harmony with reality. This process is an idealization of course. We often live in the world of symbols and our mind flies leagues above the earth. However, not all symbols are equal. ‘Finger’ is a symbol you can easily translate into the world of the concrete.
But the philosophers and their ideas are quite beyond a simple man’s intellect’s ability to compare with reality they are supposed to be in congruence with. One who has toiled over their wisdom has learnt a new vocabulary and can use it with care.
Usually this is not the case. People of below average intelligence love using words far beyond their competence as fancy feathers in their hat. It is, as it were, a symbol incongruent with reality. They are like a child who has memorized the product of two integers like a parrot, but has yet to understand sums. They like to taunt their fellows as if they are superior, when in fact they are only inflated with vanity and a vocabulary that exceeds their smarts.
“Isn’t part of understanding ourselves understanding history? How can we do this if not in reference to the great men of past times?”
You’ve hit the mark. My previous qualification not withstanding, we must know the past to know our present situation.
It would seem we live in a time quite peculiar. We have a strong sense of how a ‘time’ affects our thought. We can, from our height, scan the generations and how they are shaped by their time. This is not to limit them to a birdcage. Clearly these men also shape their time. Yet we seem to be oblivious of how our time has allowed us to be the surveyors of the past.
The most simplistic, and therefore likely wrong, explanation is our hollowness. We are empty of clear direction, and so our scholars, and some philosophers, with no passion in their minds can focus on the worlds beyond and snatch a picture with some clarity.
Do not, Elisha, get the impression that we are at a place of objectivity. We have so many patterns intruding on our minds that we will buy filth, work filth, and swim in filth and call it the good life. With all this however, it should be clear that a ship without a destination can allow the crew to stargaze better than a crew being tasked by their captain towards a destination.
There is much to expand on this. With your erudition, this should be a task you are capable of bearing.
“What kind of hubris does a person like me need to have to judge between the most brilliant people that ever lived?”
I smell a stench when I read this.
Do you think you have a choice? Well then, choose blindness and put the needles to your eyes. Do not expect me to be your guide when you have chosen your own infirmity.
You had need be a fool to come to a verdict, but a coward or a sloth to stop the inquiry. No one asked you for a conclusion, and none would hope to get one of value from you either. The demand to be king of your mind stays. Those who shy from philosophy reveal nothing but their weakness. Suspend judgment, but not the state of passionate thirst.
To mistake yourself as a genius when you are not is common. But to absolve yourself from nobility and to seek a master is repulsively common. Do not flatter yourself with humility when you wear the robes of cowardice and submissiveness to man.
Be a slave to truth, not to flesh. This is the slogan of the philosopher.
Alpha
10
Dear Elisha,
This you write me:
“The world of true-false and the world of good-bad aren’t the same, this much I know. But even if it’s secondary to the world of truth, the world of good is the one I struggle with. I don’t know where to aspire to. It’s not enough to say good equals truth, because truth is all theory and no praxis. How do I know how to act? The virtue systems that I know aren’t really compatible, and I have no way of figuring out which is better. Charity or Power? Love or Control? Some synthesis? A third way? How do I even begin to navigate these places?”
Good.
I’d like to correct first. The truth of the good is what you struggle with. It is not a field completely separate, although this field may have aspects that are conventional and not pure. Regardless, you are a social animal, and as such, the conventions bleed into the truth for you.
The fact that you are able to see the incompatibility of these systems is a result of intelligence, and the training in the pursuit of truth. Don’t you know, Elisha, that most men die in ignorance of the question of good and evil? Well, what do you think has brought you the doors of this inquiry, if not philosophy herself?
You want to know what virtue is. Is it giving or taking? This is a good question. But I assume you weren’t expecting a direct answer. You know me better than that.
But perhaps some hints regarding the way to begin to navigate.
Is this a discovery or a creation? Is virtue something that exists and man must conform to, or is a category that man decides, arbitrarily as it were? And if it is arbitrary, then what is the meaning here? Is it all just a nihilism of life?
If it is a discovery, what are the tools? Is there an authority with a divine word, as it were? Or perhaps rational dialectic like Socrates? Maybe we must appeal to our imaginative faculties and try to imagine the perfect man? Or perhaps only an embodied experience is the path? We should commit actions and try to see what the flesh says is good, and hope the spirit consents.
These are all very important questions, and the answers will lead us to different destinations. But I think you may be getting too haughty, imagining that the answers have any relevance for you. Perhaps a better inquiry would be to first discover what is common amongst these systems, and see if you are even living up to that. I assume that some of these even basic demands you are failing.
I have fair reason to assume so. Have you ever invested time in virtue, even the most basic? When have you last meditated on living by the values that you cannot reject? I tell you Elisha, a man who does not prepare will certainly be killed in battle. This admonishment should be the first to move you practically, even if you have yet to find a path.
Now another mistake made by men of weak will is the assumption that rational inquiry can be had with a sick soul. No, no such thing can happen. A man who is obsessed with his vices will never be able to see them for what they are. Similarly, a man who is indifferent of his virtues will not be able to appreciate them. Yes, a paradox of virtue is that only the virtuous can find her. But that does not mean that we are doomed, only that we must know that our motives must be pure if we are to get anywhere in this hunt.
I hope this serves you well.
Sincerely,
Alpha
11
Dear Elisha,
It has been only a month since the diagnosis, and already I am dead. Every visit of yours gave me strength and a will to survive, even if the doctors gave me no chance. While struggling against the grave, I’ve also been preparing for the end. Another paradox that reality places upon a clear minded man is a fight against fate, as well as a preparation for her. I hope you have been experiencing my death similarly, with a mix of hope and acceptance.
Even now, I find it difficult to spell out my appreciation. It’s no surprise to you that I dislike complimenting others, the same way I dislike being complemented. All of that reeks of flattery. I would have thought that on my deathbed this feeling would be absolved, but a thought, even rationally sparked, if repeated enough becomes habituated.
With that introduction here is a letter that will only be delivered after my death. In a sense, this is a letter from a ghost.
I must say that in our brief exchange I’ve often lied. Not in content, as much as in tone. You’ve constantly surprised me for the better, and often I’ve seen in you a more successful version of myself. Your ability to perceive the problem may not always have been as exact as myself, but the passion in which you experience the problems of life has been a source of great envy for me. You are one of those rare souls, for whom the problems of life are not mere words to be read and written, but experienced in their fullest force.
With that, I feel an explanation of my style is needed. Usually, I would not explain or excuse myself, but I am allowing myself to indulge at your expense. Let me explain.
My tough, somewhat rude expression was meant as a challenge. Not as a test, so that if you were too weak you would not continue, but more like a stick, to make you trot faster and more intensely. I wished to see you grow, and so, I used the same means that were most effective with myself. I gave you a challenge, and I must say that you’ve grown to a mighty oak already. Surely you have more to grow, probably even more than you can now imagine. But still, you are quite an impressive mind for your age.
I wish to give you a gift. Here are some thoughts as I stand in this precarious place, expecting to be buried soon. If you’ve received this letter, I can only assume I have been already.
What is death? I do not know. It seems to be an end of life that is beautiful, and the closer I come to death, I see the wonders of this world and feel a passionate pull towards them. To live in fullest, the simple pleasures, like a smoke on my pipe with some whisky, or a conversation with a good friend. The joy in seeing a baby smile. The scent of rain. Even sweet revenge or a well placed insult.
Even the things in life I engaged with in pain seem somewhat nicer now. Arguing over something trivial, like the nature of language or reading about another stupid politician (they all are, so I apologize for the redundancy) who said something stupid. The foolishness of the world has a charm that I didn’t quite recognize before.
On the other end, there is a feeling of release. A release from all the lies in this world. All the false flattery, that kindness that hides just another manipulation. A release from the pain in my body, and from the pain I feel when I see another suffer meaninglessly. All the corruption of the human soul, and all of the distance between my soul and the true and good will finally be done with.
You know I am not a believing man, certainly not in the classic sense. In truth, as I come closer to death, I feel any guess is as good as another. The frailty of the mind is clear to me now more than ever. Perhaps it is just an eternal sleep. Perhaps there will be judgment for every action. Who is to be the judge I do not know. How they judge, I do not know either. Perhaps I’ll be reincarnated. Perhaps, I am the world and with me you die as well. Perhaps this is just a dream, and I’ll wake up to a world so much more real than anything I’ve ever experienced.
With this mixed feeling of appreciation of life and the disgust with it I go.
I wish you the best Elisha. You are a shining star. You can bring much light to the world for others as well. Do not allow yourself to fall into the trap of conformity with the masses who seek to be special in the most trivial ways. This I see is the greatest danger before you currently.
O sweet Elisha, blessings from the dead are a wonderful thing are they not? They are almost as wonderful as blessings from the living.
May my library find good use in your hands.
Blessings,
Alpha