• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

My Conversation with Technocratic Divinity


TRIBE Member
This is long, so read it when you have time - I want feedback - Of course, it is further proof that I am indeed crazy. I do not consider this a cynical work, though the fundamentalists will denounce me as a heritic. I consider this to be an optimistic validation of justified thought.

Dazed and burdened I awake from my despair, only to realize the this state is as opaque as the previous. My mind filled with unresolved fury - the absence of sense, the sense of absens(c)e -
Haunted in this state, as in the previous. Stumbling out of my little black box I meander into a larger, brighter...box, always a box. Thoughts intersect, they run parallel, yet they never reach end points, must there always be a box?

Alas, at least this box is larger, surely increased structure must equate itself to a progression, be it slight instrumentalism; progression is, and must always be welcome. Tis promising, but wait, the thoughts do not reach conclusions. Not true. They reach termination, but spawn new thoughts, more complex, much larger, and of course; much more disturbing thoughts. Why must there always be a puzzling fury of activity in this region, why must this clouded fury lead no where.

NOT TRUE ---> it leads somewhere < > ^ v The road to further inquiry, regardless of its nature, it is still a road (someone silence the optimist - long live the rationalist - ) and as such it leads somewhere.

When does delusion set it? No delusion here, for the optimist has been silenced, the rationalist is in charge. NO delusion indeed - the larger box leads to more despair. Must I continue in this dimension, one box at a time?

No, a form of removal is required - ontology needs to re-exam-ined. Was it ever examined?

<> v^ surely no mortal is capable of explaining the nature of the state,

What about the state of nature? That is irrelevant! For there is no such thing, it is indeed the nature of state that needs to uncovered. Grow tired of this exercise, for the nature of state is the positivism that thy senses register.

What about purpose?

mine or yours?
or that of someone else? More clouded is thy mind, for there is a fundamental invalidation in the search for purpose.

How is such a claim made?

THE ANSWER: No universality exists in purpose, purpose is meaningless without context, context is the state of nature - also without universality, and that is the nature of the state. That has universality, but differs in opportunity, for it differs in history, thus it is not universal, for in theory the existence of something is nothing more than a false assertion of something that is not in existence. As such, it is only a concept, a concept without definable contours is invalid, therefore it does not exist, a lack of existence is all that exists, thus there is nothing.

Does thou play with mine mind, for thy answer leads to no intersections and conclusions,...another box is where I find myself. There is another question to be resolved, of course, there is no resolution, for my history tells me that a solution will lead to more inquiry - nonetheless, why does purpose differ?

...Purpose does not imply divinity, nor does it imply fate. Purpose is a construction of context, which is a result of opportunity. Opportunity is the child of calculation and action. Thus purpose is a dress for motivation, and desire. Desire is




Why ask why?

To know an answer, to ask more questions. I grow tired of your game, you lead me to where I can lead myself. Now lead me to an answer.

There is only one who may answer answers, which are really questions. I seek counsel. For divinity is flawed, it is the root of evil, it is the cause of the impure nature of state, it is the reason of non-existence, it is ...faith, hope, dispair, and of course, justification for purpose. It leads to circular logic, and cyclic repetition of history, ensures continuation. Thus divinity is the conversation I seek, tis the company I must seek - or death, either is acceptable. If divinity is sought, and if it is held to be the reason for existence and non existence, must it be infallible? If a fundamental flaw is uncovered, surely existence will no longer exist, or will that result be limited only to purpose?

I am God
There is no such thing, you cannot be who you say you are, for you do not exist.

Yet I am here
An abstract existence, trickery, nothing else.

Where is the rationalist?
Point conceded, proceed.

I exist
Beyond your existence here, you do not.

I exist in the hearts and minds of your fellow man, I exist in all that exists.
What purpose do you serve other than to create the purpose of man, the purpose that negates the purpose of other man, which effects existence, negates universalism, leads to despair, and leads to a box.

I do no such thing, purpose is not a result of my existence, it is a byproduct of personal calculation, it is one's own internal logic.
Yet they justify the existence of this logic through your existence, if you cease to exist, surely, they will not discolor the true state of nature, the one that does not exist.

And where will that lead? It will lead to the same place.
So what purpose do you serve, you are irrelevant.

Hope, Faith, and reason
you seal fate. Hope, faith, and reason are used wrongly.

I have no control over internal reasoning, my function is limited to guidelines of optimal existence.
That is a flawed claim, for you exist in each person, and each person exists in a different context, therefore, you are not universal, as such, you cause divisions despite being singular, you are multiple.

If I were singular, you would have to be perfect, perfectibility is non existent, for it is a concept. My multiple existence is the fault of internal logic, it is a choice.

Is there no determinism as a result of your existence?

You deserve choice.

I cannot handle choice, my kind is not worthy, it is incapable of exercising this responsibility, therefore in its ideal optimal form, choice is non-existent, thus it is not choice, it is justification.

What would you have me do?
Unmake yourself, for you cloud the minds of the mindless, and fuel the minds of the wicked, who prey on the mindless. Let the people see what they are for what they really are.

You need me to exist
No, you cannot exist on your own logic. Optimal functionality requires harmony, notwithstanding free will, the misery of those without will is proof of a lack of choice. The choice you claim to have given created a balance upon its inception, that balance has distorted the choice and power of some, to the point where there is no choice where there should be - as you claim there is. Surely, no man would choose death, and starvation, servitude to stupidity in the existence of free choice, thus some states are forced upon others as a result of the choice of others, which means that the victims have no choice. As such, there is a lack of optimal existence, there can not be free will, and equality of existence past the first set of man, thus you cannot exist. Trickery indeed. Now banish thyself and remove the stupidity of hope, and let the people face the harsh truth.
Alex D. from TRIBE on Utility Room


Well-Known TRIBEr
Is it real? Unreal? There really is no difference.
None of us are really surprised though, are we?

Postmodernism (please, god, don't make this PosTMOd's peak) is at its peak now, a reflection of a television crew in a storefront window, acting as if they are filming a reality tv show; they are an ad for Perfection-IS-here-CANT-you-SEE?

The medium is not the message, no no, the message is "REALITY" scripted using a thin stream of urine from a force-fed thirsty duck. Don't eat the yellow snow, Jimmy! Just read it! It's REALITY, can't you see?

No, Jimmy can't see. Yes, he can. He sees wonderful things, ads, wonderful perfections, and he goes CooCoo for CoCo Puffs. Piss in the snow PISS IN THE SNOW has become REALITY. We stopped caring about reality long ago, no? Didn't care if it was real, or fake, or did we? Of course we did. Milli Vanilli showed that WE CARED still. Now, we pathetically say,"So what... it's FUN."

Fun is a duckpiss word in the snow. No phoenix will rise, no Jesus of Nazareth will come. The best we can hope for is a herd of pink elephants to try to shit overtop of a past that by the grace of God will be relegated to NOWHERE nowhere land. Elephant shit--hopefully pink I don't know--will cover the obscenity with it's own putrid largesse of faeces, and then we'll celebrate until the next time my cynicism wells up and slaps you around weakly like a fag with no arms.

I leave you with the words of Jeff Zucker, president of NBC* Entertainment:

"Michael Jackson is the ultimate traffic accident. People can't take their eyes off him."

* NBC logo is a peecock