Ensaio: Think What I Whim Was Part of the Flaw
There are those who argue that I am the master of the universe. In other times fear would have lead one to assume this too dangerous to be true. Even attempts at proving this would result in such humiliating failure that no one would survive even the elaboration of the argument in their sanity, that is if they weren’t eaten by a tiger before allowing themselves to venture outside of utter submission to society. We have developed our civilizations into such sophisticated desires that now it is finally possible, with health, security and apartment blocks to fancy oneself the Master of the Universe. There is even an army of slaves called ‘customer service’ to answer to my every whim. To those who never arrived at an ethical thought due to biologically induced mental incompetence or those who were always supported by their parents, in our generation the thought is considered almost excusable.
It is arguable that the one thought that synthesised scientific hubris with religious piety and was elegant, profound and flattering enough to our complex contemporary expectations was ‘Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law’. This is because it grants the pious servant liberty whilst at once promising that liberty is only granted by this statement itself. That is, it implies that without knowledge and consciousness of this maxim, this ‘Whole of the Law,’ one imagines that there may be other laws and is only bound by one’s own ignorance to believe that there are other laws but this. To some, it would follow, by this view, that coming to terms with this statement would be the very thing that guarantees one’s liberty to do anything and everything that is one’s Will, or dare I say, whim.
However, there is a counterproposal, or rather, an addendum, to this thought. Imagine anyone ever thinking, reading or speaking this statement, it would then follow that the second person, or the ‘Thou’ of the maxim would necessarily become NEVER oneself, but whomever is being addressed – the very opposite of oneself – for the maxim is not ‘Do What I Will Shall Be the Whole of the Law’. If we say this to a general and impersonal ‘thou’ we arrive at a bias towards religious piousness again. Even if one programmes a robot to constantly repeat this reassurance, still the thoughtless wires and tin that make up the robot’s lack of independence would serve as testimony to the fact that it is the programmer who is the culprit of the words in the first place. Even an amateur theologian can now sense what the consequence of all this is. There is no ‘Thou’ without a first person to make its acknowledgement.
I certainly didn’t come up with this maxim. Even the one printing presses call ‘author’ makes sure to clarify that he himself was nothing but a messenger. So is this other author, whomever he may be, the ‘thou’ of the maxim? Is it his, her or its Will that shall be the whole of the law? If so, then isn’t the statement at worst acceptance of blind tyranny (if personal) or, at best, redundant submission to an almighty superiority (if impersonal – something that we could’ve just kept Sunday school for)?. Alas, I cannot challenge this statement, for it does not allow for me to ‘Do What I Will’. Instead I must admit of the fact that it is ‘Thou’, faithful reader, whomever thou mayst be, who shall be the Master of the Universe. Perhaps, if and when you learn this, you may remind me someday. Then we shall have no other laws.
Love is the Law, Love under Will.