SAMPLE CHAPTER FOR STORYLINE #4
(CHAPTER 8)
"Today, in this court of law, you are accused of disseminating ideas
that are destructive to the political, cultural, and spiritual
structures of this country. Furthermore, the international community
considers you to be an outlaw and an instigator of revolt, civil unrest,
and blasphemous thought. The entire world is watching these legal
proceedings closely, and many sovereign nations have already declared
their intentions to achieve retribution using a wide range of tactics,
including the penalty of death. In summary, at national and
international levels, it is clear that the ideas found in your writings
have created a seemingly unquenchable thirst for justice, both rational
and institutional as well as irrational and violent. In the face of not
only the formal charges brought against you in this court, but also the
growing sense of indignation around the globe, how do you plead?"
Mike realized that his answer would set the tone for the rest of the
trial not only in a legal sense but also in terms of how people would
think of him. Usually a defendant was given a limited range of replies
and forced to choose one which would be the foundation for additional
statements throughout the trial. However, from his vantage point, none
of the standard answers seemed sufficient or appropriate given the
situation in which he found himself. Instead, he just decided to speak
his mind.
"I am defenseless. I have no defense. I am unable to say that I’m
guilty or not guilty. But please don't misunderstand my reply as one of
‘no contest? I won't contest whether I'm guilty or not because my
personal involvement really doesn't make a difference. Simply stated, I
have functioned as a portal through which these alleged revolutionary,
heretical, and dangerous concepts have gained life - a life in the form
of comprehensible ideas expressed through standardized linguistic
conventions. By saying this, I neither claim credit nor shoulder
responsibility for the intellectual generation of these ideas or their
tangible manifestations. I truly believe that these ideas possess an
objective existence all their own. They are one form of expressive human
energy which has taken its refuge, whether it be abhorrent or
liberating, in written language. I would never say that these ideas
originated within me; I just happened to be the person who expressed
them in written form. I don't know if this is a crime or not; nor will I
argue it. Therefore, I'm clearly defenseless. However, given the fact
that this is a formal legal affair, I will gladly participate in a
critical discussion of these ideas, and, as for the legal ramifications,
well, I just believe I'm not involved."
"As an individual human, I acknowledge my obligation to act as a
responsible member of society. However, within the realm of ideas, I
believe that I exist only as a manifestation of the vast, amorphous, and
energetic entity that is humanity. It is my view, that as humans, we
don't create ideas but rather realize or comprehend them, and then, in
turn, we give these discoveries dimensional expression. In cultures that
emphasize individualistic efforts, there is also commonly a system of
rewards and failures which often mistakenly attributes particular
achievements to specific people. These individuals are cast in the role
of singular societal benefactor, disregarding the inherent eclectic
aspect of all human knowledge as well as the objective essence of the
totality in which we all reside."
"Looking back at human evolution, there seems to be a natural
progression of thinkers and resultant human action. I believe that this
evolution wasn't so much a process of creation or even remarkable
application, but rather a result of heightened awareness and eventual
successful and fortunate enactment. Within this context, I see myself
not as an instigator or blasphemous revolutionary, but rather as a
person who has almost literally pulled ideas from the air and given them
life. In this way, the existence of the ideas in no way depends on my
existence, or, for that matter, the results of this trial. The ideas
have existed long before I did and will exist long after. In the end, as
ridiculous as the query might seem on the surface, perhaps the much more
relevant question actually is whether the totality of existence bears
guilt or responsibility."
"I therefore see myself as defenseless like every other human being
who has ever perceived, shared, or expressed a thought. At base, if
these ideas had not found their expression through me, undoubtedly,
someone else would have acted as the channel of human energy. Amazingly,
our intrinsic egalitarian essence as members of the same species
provides all of us which the same opportunity for similar perception and
expression."
"The court will recognize this statement as a plea of not guilty for
the time being. Forthwith, we will commence with a statement and
questioning from the prosecutor's side. Counselor if you please."
"Thank you. I must say that the defendant has given us all a rather
interesting and perhaps unique explanation of his actions and thoughts.
All of that notwithstanding, I think we had better go back to the 'nuts
and bolts' of this case and focus in on what exactly the defendant is
being charged with. To reiterate, the charge is the propagation of
revolutionary ideas that are destructive to the very foundation of this
country's political, cultural, and spiritual structures."
"This, in fact, is an extremely serious accusation and must be viewed
with the utmost care in order to render a correct verdict. It is my role
as prosecutor to show clearly that the defendant knowingly and
maliciously formulated the aforementioned ideas and disseminated them in
the form of literature with the sole purpose of not only undermining,
but also destroying, the very existence of our great country's
political, cultural, and spiritual institutions. A review of each and
every heinous segment of the defendant’s heretical and counterculture
treatise will clearly demonstrate to the jury that the defendant should
be penalized with the most strict sentence for his crime against the
republic. I will now proceed with my questioning."
"Mike, what was your purpose in creating your most recent piece of
writing?"
"I wanted to express the thoughts that were in my mind in the hope
that these ideas could be discussed freely throughout the world and lead
to the positive and productive advancement of life on this planet."
"And what exactly were the ideas in your mind?"
"A variety of topics. Would you like to know everything?"
"Well, why don't you give us a general outline to start with."
"O.K. If I had to put my ideas in a general form or categorize them, I
have to say that most of my ideas take the form of questions."
"What kind of questions?"
"Usually questions that address or analyze the essential nature of
things or act as a means to deconstruct thought patterns or instinctive
behavior in order to reach a level of cognitive understanding. The
questions take various forms: some spring from the experience of
observation; some manifest themselves from external stimuli such as
verbal communication or the assimilation of information; and others seem
to emerge from inside, from some inherent well of inquisitiveness. In
addition, some of the questions are constructed in order to act as a
means of deciphering various situations."
"I'd say that, generally speaking, I have an analytical mind which
constantly examines whatever I come in contact with, in whatever form.
It's not a pastime, but rather a natural characteristic. Quite frankly,
sometimes it's frustrating and annoying to be consumed, and, at times,
distracted, mentally by so many questions. However, it never becomes a
serious problem unless I allow myself to wallow in negative
introspection."
"And yet, I eventually realized that I needed an outlet of some kind,
and this is what led me to start writing; not that it is entirely a
therapeutic process. But, after a fair amount of self-deprecation and an
unsavory over dependence on self-doubt, I figured that writing was the
best, and perhaps, the only way I could develop my ideas for productive
purposes, both for myself and maybe for other people."
"What exactly do you mean when you say 'deconstruct'?"
"I view the process of deconstruction to be a positive action through
which things can be examined and seen from a variety of perspectives.
It's a procedure of dismantling an idea into its most basic parts and
examining each of those different pieces separately. After considering a
concept in this way, the objective whole is open to various, perhaps
novel, interpretations and relative progressions of thought. Societal
axioms and precepts, for example, which are derived from aspects of
intellectual or emotional thought as well as systematic or
individualistic belief, are elements ripe for deconstruction and
subsequent examination."
"I don't know why I repeatedly pursue this pattern of thought with
such vigor, but I've never really been able to accept any ideas easily.
Perhaps when I was younger, and responding to the challenges of
conventional education, I accepted certain concepts more readily. But,
like anyone else, as I became older, I began to use the knowledge that I
had successively assimilated during my life as a reference and a means
to reflect in order to engage in abstract forms of analysis. Gradually,
I developed a need to question what I was taught, or whatever
information was widely disseminated and sanctioned as the truth."
"I must say clearly, however, that aside from what I consider to be
relatively normal adolescent, morbid and quasi-rebellious pondering,
I've never tried purposely to attain a sphere of occultism or
counterculture perception. It's always been more a matter of wanting to
analyze things before deciding to adopt them as ideas that I could rely
on. And for me, the best way to accomplish this has always been to
question, deconstruct, and gain a fresh perspective while rejecting
acceptance based on faith. Simply stated, the mental act of
deconstruction and its correlative process of reconstruction have
enabled me to make decisions or think along lines that felt
instinctively correct to me."
"Why was it that you felt you couldn't accept ideas that were
considered axiomatic? Did you feel like you were living in some kind of
special world?"
"It's difficult to say for sure. Maybe I just naturally possess an
aversion to acceptance. Maybe a psychologist could look at my upbringing
and make a determination from that perspective. The contents are
straightforward enough: the child of divorced parents is subsequently
spoiled by his mother perhaps in an attempt to compensate for the
absence of a father or maybe to alleviate matriarchal guilt. And the
conclusions might also be fairly basic: the situation produced a person
that was distrustful because of a perceived feeling of betrayal created
by his parent's actions, and it also fostered a person who was used to
getting his own way and therefore had to shape everything into some kind
of personally agreeable form before accepting it. However, this type of
psychoanalysis seems like a facile and futile response to the very real
and inherent proclivity towards mental exploration and extrapolation
that I have always had; moreover, my predilection towards breaking
through the apparent limitations that have been established in the
various forms of human thinking that now exist."
"You asked me if I felt that I was living in some kind of special
world, correct? Well, I never thought that my world was anything other
than regular, but sometimes I felt that I noticed things that other
people didn't. Or, even if other people discerned similar things, I
always wondered why they didn't react or have the same feelings as I
did. I guess I could never allow myself to enjoy certain aspects of life
if I knew that problems existed simultaneously, and so I started to try
to think of ways to address, at a philosophical level, the problems that
I saw around me."
"Most of that effort was made in the realm of ideas because it seemed
to me that even the efforts that were being made to accomplish good
deeds in the world were too often vanquished by people who were greedy
and self-serving. So I started to think that if I could come up with
enough good ideas to improve the world, then I could make a positive
contribution. It wouldn't be a means of controlling the ideas of others,
but rather an offering from which people could choose to partake and
possibly implement that which they believed would be workable."
"I wanted to avoid establishing yet another variation on the 'cult of
personality' approach that has been used to wield power by certain
individuals or groups in the past for both worthy and vile purposes.
Instead, the objective would be an expression of conceptual information
that could provide a means through which ideas could be realigned
through individual choice and adoption rather than controlled by
whatever power factions usually disseminated or imposed ideas and
precepts. The purpose was to steer clear of self-aggrandizement and
focus on an objective presentation: for example, just as I've listened
to music and gained insight that I might not have otherwise found
naturally, I thought that dispersing my ideas in some semi-coherent
fashion might engender thought or action in other people that could lead
to productive results."
"So might you say that you were trying to agitate others through your
writings?"
"Certainly it would depend on the definition or connotation of
'agitate' and its intended purposes. But actually, for me, the results
were not as important as the effort to express the ideas. I never looked
to spur anyone to action. In fact, in my opinion, the assessment of a
particular aim would be extremely challenging given that determining
exactly what agitates people is a process that’s inherently
inconclusive. In addition, the topic of the relationship between
objective ideas and any subsequent actions is almost endless in terms of
the purported responsibility that the purveyor of those concepts
retains. In the end, I believe that the recipient of specific
information possesses the only true answers from the standpoint of
purpose and execution."
"Expressing ideas is like breathing, in that, a person takes in
something and processes it, and then, in exhaling, returns the air in a
slightly different form. Of course, if that person is suffering from
some highly contagious disease then he or she bears some responsibility
to other people to contain the potential release of germs upon exhaling.
But I think one difference between this analogy and the reality of
disseminating information is that ideas, although perhaps contagious,
are usually not lethal until they achieve a state of action. And, for
me, it's during that transition from the abstract, as manifested in the
form of an idea, to the literal, in the form of an action, that the
responsibility shifts to the person who is interpreting the expression."
"Is it correct to assume then that you don't see yourself as an
agitator or revolutionary in anyway - someone who conceives of ideas to
achieve some kind of displacement of authority and societal norms in the
various realms of established human interaction like culture, religion,
or economics?"
"I will say that I'm interested in every sphere of human activity,
including the ones that you mentioned, and therefore probably
consciously, and, at times, subconsciously, scrutinize and assess the
multifarious facets of human behavior that manifest themselves in the
various realms of human energetic proclivities. That is to say that I
look at all human activity and try to understand and make sense of it so
that I can decide whether to accept it or not. The difference between
myself and the type of person who you seem to be describing as an
'agitator', or, what is commonly accepted as 'agitator', is that that
type of person tries to achieve some kind of change or movement of power
within a certain realm; whereas, I only examine and then express certain
perspectives on a variety of topics related to human action."
"I'm an observer of life and a subsequent disseminator of concepts
without any pretense or aspiration for change or results. I feel that I
act as a conduit through which ideas can be channeled and then released,
hopefully without any personal input. The ideas that I am concerned with
already have an existence all their own, but I discern and then express
them. In other words, any person could do the same thing if they took
the time to consider various issues and then decided to write about
them. The knowledge ensconced in the ideas expressed isn't esoteric in
any way. Actually, it's just awaiting discovery. It's like turning on a
faucet and having water come out - I'm just twisting the handle. It
doesn't take any special ability, anyone could do it, and probably many
people are doing the same thing right now. However, what people do with
the water is another matter."
"It seems to me, however, that you are not only examining various
aspects of life and human activity, but you're also casting judgments.
What kind of authority or right do you think you have to make these
types of judgments?"
"I've often thought about my ability to judge and/or my right and
perhaps my responsibility. This is a topic that deserves a fair amount
of discussion because of its relevancy in this courtroom, and also
because it's something that all humans must consider no matter what kind
of life they are living."
"I don't think that humans have an inalienable right to judge others
because of their societal standing. Of course, I recognize the viability
and seemingly virtual necessity of establishing a mechanism through
which certain judgments can be made within a given culture or society,
but I don't think this power of judgment is born naturally. It is a by-product
of a culture's hierarchical structure. At times, however, it
appears as if some of the people who occupy various societal roles,
through the course of time, deem their position to be a sovereign right.
And often the positions of societal power are decided based on
information that is faulty, pernicious, prejudicial, or discriminatory,
thus leading to warped allocations of power and social standing."
"For example: legacies and royalties that decree the predominance of a
certain family or group; amalgams of jaundiced misunderstanding and
hatred that solidify into discriminatory and exclusionary structures
which suppress and exploit certain groups; politically and religiously
oriented associations which thwart the social mobility of certain groups
or individuals; and restrictive economic policies and international
standards that squelch financial opportunities and hope for various
national entities and/or individuals. These are just a few
manifestations, but the practice of establishing and subsequently
wielding power which concurrently allows certain people to judge others
occurs within the most extreme macro and microcosms. Of course, there is
always some kind of intellectual and/or physical rationale for the
resultant judgmental actions, or so it seems, but I would contend that
the entire process of humans judging others than themselves is flawed
and perhaps ultimately in vain. And yet it goes on and on."
"I think the only entities that have the proper power to make
judgments of a certain individual are that individual and whatever
spiritual entity or God that that person believes in. I believe that
this is the case because, although the totality of human knowledge
exists within us all and is potentially accessible to all humans, no one
individual has the complete capacity to assume the perspective of
another and gain the full understanding of that other person's thoughts
because the details and personal mix of traits and experiences are too
complicated. In other words, everyone has the ability to tap into the
great reservoir of knowledge that resides and flows through all of us.
But, in terms of deciphering another person's internal energy and mental
and physical states, which are constantly in flux anyway, to the extent
that judgments can be made about that person, is a concept that appears
to be inexact at best and perhaps impossible."
"Well, just the same, we're in a court room now, and the duty that
lies before us is to make certain judgments. But, because you've brought
it up, let's speak for a while about that whole process of judging and
who possesses the right to judge."
"It seems to me that you've made a statement which is based on a
certain perspective or belief. Namely, that you believe that human
beings can't judge other humans because they lack the exact same
perspective that that individual possesses. Let's take a look at the
methodology of judging, however, from a logical point of view, and see
if there isn't some way that we might, in fact, be able to justify this
seemingly heinous tendency of ours."
|