The question begins from a point that seems simple, but it extends to the very foundation of existence: What if existence were not random, but were based on programming, engineering, and order?
Existence, according to this view, is not something separate from organization; whatever exists takes a form and shape and becomes embodied within a system. As for what does not exist, it cannot be organized, formed, or embodied. Hence, the system itself becomes evidence that behind embodiment there is a rationale, and that behind organization there is a programmer and an engineer.
If we assume that existence is without organization, and that life is not based on any engineering or programming, then our very existence loses its justification. And if the origin is absurdity and absolute randomness, there will no longer be any real reason calling for action, searching, speaking, or even being present in this existence; for there would then remain no “motive” that calls for anything, nor any purpose that justifies movement.
Therefore, seeing absurdity and randomness may be, in this conception, a reflection of a defect in the program that sees things, not necessarily a description of the program by which things are organized. Whoever sees chaos in everything may be seeing the chaos of their internal program, thus projecting that defect onto existence itself. But when the program becomes sound, it sees order where it once thought it saw absurdity.
From here another paradox appears: human beings often defend the defect from which they suffer, and may even defend the very thing that torments them. The suffering person may justify their suffering, the sick person may identify with their illness, and the one who carries a mistake may become a defender of that mistake. Therefore, rejecting order is not always a search for truth; sometimes it is a defense of a defect that the human being has become part of.
Limits Are Not Against Everyone
If existence is based on a system, then not everything in it is necessarily available to everyone.
Limitation here does not mean deficiency, but specialization. A book intended for secondary-school students is not a book open to every use; the eye is specialized for seeing, hearing is specialized for hearing, and understanding is specialized for whoever possesses the ability to understand. The means of the Creator, according to this view, are conditional; a human being does not obtain something merely because they desire it, but obtains what lies within their domain and what corresponds to their programming.
From here arises the question of the desire to possess what does not belong to the human being.
A person may want something they do not obtain, and their failure to obtain it may turn into a source of hostility. Another may want to possess authority or a position that does not belong to them. The matter may even reach, in its extreme form, the desire for divinity itself.
But divinity, according to this logic, is not an open domain for everyone; because opening it to everyone eliminates its meaning. If everyone were gods, what would remain of the meaning of divinity in the first place?
Here the difference between “what is yours” and “what is not yours” becomes fundamental: what is yours, you enjoy; and what is not yours may become a source of torment when you demand it and insist on obtaining it. From here one can understand why someone who rebelled against the Creator may see the Creator as the source of his torment; not because the Creator is such in Himself, but because his will did not become embodied in the form he himself wanted.
He wants something, but something else becomes embodied instead.
Here the human being enters into a bad relationship with the body, embodiment, and limits.
Embodiment: Blessing or Torment According to What We Do with It
Embodiment is not good or evil in itself. The body becomes a field of bliss or torment according to the way the human being directs their body.
The person who directs their body toward ugliness, and makes their actions and embodiment tools of ugliness, ends up in ugliness. But whoever directs their body toward beauty and perfection, embodiment becomes for them the best thing that happened to them.
Thus, the problem is not in the existence of limits or in the existence of the body, but in how they are dealt with.
The door, for example, is in the interest of the people of the house because it protects them, while it is an obstacle for whoever has no right to enter. Likewise, limits may be in the interest of those who belong to them, and against those who want to cross them without right.
Therefore, rebellion against limits does not necessarily mean liberation, just as rebellion against embodiment does not necessarily mean salvation.
Rather, a person may corrupt their embodiment in order to prove that embodiment is bad, while another perfects their embodiment to prove the opposite.
In the end, “They are nothing but your deeds”: what you drive into existence through your actions is what returns to you.
When Deficiency Fears Perfection
If perfection becomes embodied, the deficient no longer has the same space for competition.
Therefore, deficiency may try to prevent perfection from appearing before it is completed. For the perfect, if embodied in the form of justice, leaves little room for injustice. And if truth becomes embodied, the space for betrayal, corruption, and hostility becomes narrower.
Therefore, “external hands” intervene, according to this view, to weaken will, disperse ability, and prevent the completion of embodiment.
From here emerges the image of conflict as a conflict between two visions: a vision that wants perfection to become embodied, and a vision that benefits from the continuation of deficiency.
The conflict is not necessarily between two states or between two political camps in the traditional sense, but between two conceptions of existence. In conflict, the truth of each vision appears, and what was hidden within it becomes visible.
Therefore, true peace, according to this conception, is not merely a truce between opposing forces; peace cannot be achieved as long as its obstacles remain. Hence comes the idea of “cleaning”: cleaning the body, cleaning the earth, and getting rid of toxins, waste, betrayal, and everything that prevents the completion of the system.
War as a Confrontation with the Obstacles to Peace
War here is not a call for violence merely for the sake of violence, but is presented as an extreme form of a conflict between what wants to continue corruption and what wants to restore order.
There may be an undeclared war, an undeclared hostility, a hidden conflict that does not appear directly but operates beneath the surface. And when this conflict can no longer be concealed, it appears on the surface.
But power in this war is not merely iron and weapons.
Power can be psychological, social, economic, and spiritual. The state that possesses weapons is not necessarily the state that possesses the ability to wage war; because war is also managed by society’s ability to endure, psychological readiness, economic preparedness, and the ability to continue.
Therefore, reducing power to the ranking of armies and the number of aircraft, tanks, and missiles is an incomplete reading.
Iron rusts, weapons run out, but there are things harder than iron: will, the ability to endure, cohesion, and the ability to continue.
Food Deficiency and Lack of Concentration
One of the most dangerous forms of weakening the human being, according to this view, is not only reducing what they eat, but reducing the “effectiveness” of what reaches them.
Something may appear large in its form, but be small in its effect. Likewise, the quantity may be large while the concentration and effect are deficient.
This is connected to a fundamental idea: whoever wants to control a human being does not always need to control their body directly; sometimes it is enough to scatter their concentration.
The unfocused person can have ideas planted in their mind, their perception of reality can be reshaped, and their understanding of facts can change because they no longer possess sufficient ability to concentrate and review.
From here comes the criticism of modern educational curricula.
The old curricula, according to the proposed conception, were denser and richer, and they required great concentration from the student. Modern curricula, however, may turn simple information into dozens of pages of repetition and detail, which may lead to weakening the ability to concentrate instead of strengthening it.
In this context, it is a mistake to equate a certificate with knowledge, a university with culture, or formal education with the ability to recognize what is correct.
There may be a person who spent very little time in school, yet possesses a greater ability to perceive and concentrate than someone who spent twenty years in education.
The problem is not in the number of years you spent studying, but in how much of your ability to understand remains.
When Everything Becomes Available, Some Things Lose Their Value
From here comes the objection to the idea of making everything available to everyone without distinction.
When education becomes open without limits, secret information becomes open, and everyone becomes capable of presenting themselves as a possessor of knowledge, levels become mixed and privacy is lost.
Value, according to this conception, sometimes needs boundaries and walls; because what is absolutely available to everyone may lose part of its value.
This does not mean that knowledge is bad, but that knowledge is not merely a quantity of information. There is a difference between possessing information and possessing the capacity to carry, understand, and use it.
Technology: A Secondary Tool or a Substitute for the Original?
Technology comes in this context as a clear example of the means turning into an end.
Technology is originally a tool. But it becomes a problem when the human being changes from a user of it into its servant.
Human beings lived before technology, and were able to build, cultivate, eat, communicate, and live. Therefore, the inability to live without technology may itself be a sign of a change in the relationship between the human being and the tool.
Even simple things reveal this.
When a person washes their clothes by hand, they feel that they themselves performed the cleaning process. But when they put the clothes into the machine, press a button, and wait, they may become separated from the act itself, even though the result may be better.
The problem is not the washing machine, but the human being’s transition from actor to recipient.
Therefore, technology is not an enemy in itself; rather, it becomes dangerous when it magnifies the secondary things and weakens the essentials.
Artificial Intelligence and Emptiness
The same applies to artificial intelligence.
Being fascinated by its ability to summarize books or reproduce information does not necessarily mean possessing new knowledge. You may obtain a summary of a book, but the question remains: What did you do with this summary?
The problem, according to this view, is not the tool itself, but the possibility of using it to push the human being toward emptiness: to become a consumer of results instead of being an actor in the process of knowledge.
From here comes the criticism of the obsession with space and the colonization of planets, particularly Mars.
If the human being has not completed the repair of Earth, why flee to a place where they do not possess the basics of life?
On Earth there is air, water, vegetation, food, and the infrastructure necessary for life. Elsewhere, the human being may have to manufacture almost everything from the beginning.
So what are we searching for there if we already have here an Earth that we have not understood and have not managed well?
The question is not: Can we reach Mars? Rather: What will we achieve there, and what are we incapable of achieving here?
Power Is Not in Technology Alone
From here the question returns to war.
Some imagine that the coming war will be determined by technology alone, and that whoever possesses the most advanced weapon will win.
But this conception is incomplete.
If technology is available for proliferation, the difference between it may narrow. Multiple parties may reach comparable levels of armament.
The decisive factor, however, remains broader: readiness, the economy, society, will, the ability to endure, relationships, and psychological and social reach.
Therefore, the strength of a state cannot be read through iron alone.
Power may lie in the relationships the state has built, in the society that protects it, in its ability to continue, and in its ability to endure war.
Returning to the Original Program
All these ideas ultimately return to one concept: the original program.
The human being does not need only to discover new things; they also need to return to the origin.
The highest degrees of programming, according to this view, are for the human being to possess complete readiness to defend their original programming.
If something comes wanting to corrupt the program, the human being should not become a partner in corrupting it.
Here the issue of “awakening” appears.
Awakening is not merely emerging from a state of sleep; rather, it may be a direct confrontation with everything that has been inserted into the program in the form of errors and deviations. In its most extreme form, getting rid of the defect becomes similar to an act of killing the defect within the programming.
But this idea places a great responsibility on the human being: not everyone who claims to awaken you is a reformer, and not everyone who asks you to destroy what surrounds you has brought you out of the matrix.
Al-Hallaj and the Problem of Dismantling the Programming
Al-Hallaj can be invoked here as an example of the conflict with the programming of the age.
He departed from the dominant intellectual system of his time, and ended up being killed.
But defending the human being does not necessarily mean defending everything he said or did. There is a difference between resisting an oppressive programming and desiring to dismantle all programming.
If you want to liberate the human being, but at the same time you want to dismantle society, the body, relationships, and all boundaries, you may transform from a liberator of the program into a corrupter of it.
The program needs reform, not abolition.
Why Are Limits Necessary?
Here we reach the question of freedom.
Why does the human being look at limits as though they were absolute evil?
There are limits that are part of being itself. A relationship needs boundaries, identity needs boundaries, the body needs boundaries, and the relationship with God needs boundaries, specification, and embodiment in order to become an actual relationship.
As for a relationship that is open without boundaries, it may end up eliminating the relationship itself.
If the relationship is not defined, personified, and embodied, it becomes difficult to speak of a real relationship.
Therefore, not every boundary is a prison.
Some boundaries are what make the thing possible in the first place.
Who Allows the Enemy to Enter?
If the human being is a program, then the question becomes: How do we know what enters this program?
There are things that enter through the obvious door, and things that infiltrate through hidden doors.
In this conception, what needs to hide may be an indication that it does not serve the program.
The body that allows what corrupts it to enter may become a home for the defect. And the human being who allows the enemy to dwell within them, then justifies its existence, may gradually transform from master of their body into a prisoner within it.
Therefore, cleaning begins from within.
The point is not for someone else to clean you, but for you to clean yourself, review what has entered you, and distinguish between what serves your program and what corrupts it.
“Awakening” Is Not Madness
One of the most dangerous mistakes is turning awakening into isolation and severing ties with everyone.
It does not mean that when a person “awakens” they cut their relationships, become homeless, reject their family and society, or declare themselves insane.
If awakening becomes a reason for destroying your life, corrupting your relationships, losing your possessions, and rejecting every responsibility, then you must ask: Is this really awakening?
Madness should not become reason, nor reason madness.
The person who refuses to review themselves, and refuses to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, may use the idea of “escaping the matrix” to flee from responsibility.
And the person who claims to have no identity, no name, no sex, and no belonging may, in reality, be denying the simplest facts that constitute their existence.
Identity is not a defect.
Being Algerian is not a defect, being male or female is not a defect, and having a name, a family, and a place of upbringing is not a defect.
The problem is not in the boundaries, but in the defect that makes a person hate their own existence.
Imagination and Illusion
The more imagination dominates the human being, the less their effect on reality.
And when their effect on reality decreases, reality itself begins to appear before them as though it were imagination.
But when a person leaves a real effect on the world, they feel the reality of their existence.
From here emerges the relationship between imagination and illusion.
A human being may become a servant of their fantasies, and imagination may transform from a tool into a master. This problem appears clearly in sexual fantasy, which can become, according to this conception, a substitute for real action, consuming energy instead of directing it toward realistic embodiment.
Thus, the human being becomes a prisoner of an image in their mind instead of living reality.
Do Not Leave the Defect Small
A small defect, if left alone, grows.
Therefore, confronting the defect should begin from the moment it appears, not after it becomes part of the structure.
If you feel that something is not right, review it. Search for its source. Do not allow it to expand merely because confronting it now seems uncomfortable.
The snake is killed while it is small before it becomes larger than your ability to control it.
This does not mean pathological obsession, but serious review.
Methodological doubt is not always weakness; sometimes it is a means of protecting the program. The person who reviews nothing may be the most exposed to defect, while the second, third, and fourth review may be necessary when the danger is great.
There Is No Balance Between Good and Evil
One of the most dangerous ideas, according to this view, is the idea of “balance between good and evil.”
Good and evil are not two equal forces that must coexist.
Justice does not balance injustice; rather, the absence of injustice is what allows justice to be justice, meaning that there is no balance between good and evil, but good is the balance.
Therefore, allowing evil to coexist with good may lead to normalizing evil.
If a criminal poses a real danger, justice does not mean leaving him to live within society as though nothing had happened.
The point is not revenge, but protecting the system from defect.
From here true peace becomes different from merely coexisting with evil.
It is evil that calls for war when it threatens the system, not the one who tries to stop it.
Resistance Is a Condition of Protection
If you do not resist the defect, it expands.
The enemy does not always need direct force; sometimes it is enough to convince you not to resist.
When you stop resisting, the defect enters, then settles, then builds a place for itself within the program, and with time it becomes more difficult to remove it.
Therefore, resistance is not always aggression; it may be a defense of boundaries, identity, the body, and the program.
Natural Food and the Biological Program
The same idea returns to food.
There is an objection to replacing the natural source with an industrial source merely because the latter presents itself as an alternative.
The animal, according to this view, is part of the dietary system and the biological program, and meat is not merely protein that can be automatically replaced with another substance.
The matter is not merely the amount of protein, but the nature of the source and the complete composition that comes with it.
From here emerges the criticism of turning food into an industrial product separated from its origin, as though the human being could rebuild everything merely by knowing some of its components.
Knowing part of the system does not mean possessing the whole system.
The Biological Program Is More Complex Than Our Interventions
The human being itself is an example of this.
The embryo begins from divisions in which the final form of the human being does not appear. Nevertheless, these divisions move toward forming different systems: a digestive system, an immune system, a nervous system, a skeleton, and others.
It is an extremely complex process, making it easy to question the limits of the human being’s ability to rewrite the program.
A human being may be able to intervene in parts of it, and may be able to modify some processes, but that does not mean that they have possessed the entire program or been able to replace it.
Therefore, attempting to rewrite DNA or “write the program anew” does not necessarily mean overcoming the original program.
The program exists within the human being itself, and without it the human being would not have been able to attempt to modify it in the first place.
Medicine Between Rescue and Dependence
The same applies to medicine.
The objection is not to saving or treating the human being, but to turning treatment into a system that makes the human being incapable of relying on their biological program.
If a human being becomes permanently dependent on external intervention in order to continue, then the question becomes: Are we repairing the program, or creating a new program that cannot continue without our intervention?
Here the difference between assistance and creating dependence appears.
Intervention can be useful when it treats a real defect, but it can become a problem if the intervention itself becomes the source of dependence.
Immortality Is Not Here
In the end, death remains part of the system.
The human being who is born dies.
Medicine can reduce deaths, and the human being can extend life, and the life of a loved one can be saved through treatment, but that does not mean that the human being has abolished death.
Immortality does not exist here.
Therefore, accepting the reality of the end does not mean abandoning life, but understanding its nature.
If our existence is temporary, then the real question is not how to prevent the end at any cost, but how to live within the program in which we found ourselves, how to improve our embodiment, how to preserve what has been given to us, and how not to allow the defect to turn our existence into torment.
Conclusion: Returning to the Origin
In the end, all the threads return to the first idea:
Existence is programming, programming is order, order is embodiment, and embodiment is responsibility.
Freedom is not in removing all boundaries, knowledge is not in possessing the greatest number of pieces of information, power is not in possessing the greatest number of weapons, technology is not in possessing the newest devices, awakening is not in cutting relationships, liberation is not in denying identity, health is not in constant intervention, and progress is not in fleeing from Earth.
The whole matter concerns the human being’s ability to know the program within which they live, and to distinguish between what serves it and what corrupts it.
The one who enjoys their boundaries may see boundaries as protection, while the one who suffers from them may see them as a prison.
The one who perfects their embodiment may see the body as a blessing, while the one who directs their body toward ugliness may see it as torment.
Therefore, returning to the original program does not mean returning to the past, but returning to the foundation: to reality instead of illusion, to action instead of fantasy, to concentration instead of distraction, to embodiment instead of escape, to responsibility instead of denial, and to protecting what exists instead of destroying it in the name of liberation.
The program we are searching for is not something entirely outside us; it is also present within us.
The problem is not always that the human being does not possess the program, but that they may forget that the program exists within them, and then try to replace it with something lesser than it.
And from here the real conflict begins: not between the human being and existence, but between what can become embodied in the human being of perfection, and everything that attempts to prevent that perfection from becoming embodied.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment