Background

Proves are always difficult to get and even more to transmit. However obvious it may seem to some it were the earth turning around the sun and not the other way round, there are millions who have certainly problems to grasp such … evidence. For them, the sun continues to get up in the morning somewhere east and stays at a summit for a few minutes at midday. While trying to put names on phenomena in order to order them in such ways that they become intelligible to at least a few, you should never forget this fact.

 

Our attempt is perhaps subjective and it may happen that we really don’t want to convince the world of whatever. We may finish by thinking that the reality we managed to give a name to may interest others, eventually. We may start this attempt presuming it is a universal truth we are trying to escape of. In any case we can’t omit the fact the proof as such may have value only if it results of a path of demonstration we may not be wanting to impose at the end. Perhaps it is convincing and thus enough for some. Perhaps it isn’t for others. But it will be convincing for some only if you manage to put a potential reader into the right perspective allowing him to follow your own progress in the attempt of naming.

 

It may take years. It’s true that sometimes it takes hundreds of years.

 

What are we trying to prove and what are we aiming at, finally? I’m convinced of the fact that you can’t be honest but if your goal takes its sources in a subjective conviction, need or questioning and that, this missing, you will at the end just be pretending to prove you’re better or more intelligent than others because you know something others don’t.  Thing which, up to a certain extent, does put an enormous amount of shadows on results. Reason why you may become critical on science, at the end, too, but that’s a subsidiary question.

 

Inside of a world where fantasy gets mixed to reality in such ways that it becomes almost impossible to know what belongs finally to what, questions are easy to be put and perhaps it has little importance whether you get a proper answer, at the end. Except of one, the most vital of all: can it be said true that these questions were really put and that you really thought you were getting an answer to them? If you hadn’t said it was all a lie, I would certainly not have studied philosophy, but I’m even more stubborn than you and at the end, there must be a way to prove that you were wrong. Not that I was right, no, that you were wrong.

 

It was to presume that the magic world of children communicates in ways that has rather never been studied or that some at least, due to most peculiar circumstances, do so. You must have been somewhere, I was sure. To prove you were wrong had to imply not only it were possible to locate you but also to put in front of your nose the horrible evidence. In words you would understand and in such ways you wouldn’t try to hide away behind a negligent ‘what do I care’ the obvious lack of understanding of abstract concepts.

 

It’s personal, you see. I’m just furious because you are refusing my real existence and I may say it is worth the while dedicating a life to the attempt of proving you’re wrong.

 

To prove that the fabrics of soul is made in such ways that it allows communication crossing oceans and mountains is the hypothesis you will put on theoretical grounds and this affects philosophy. Theories of knowledge and the kind. In the meantime you have become an adult and childish questions become a background that should not affect the seriousness of your investigations. The personal quarrel may have larger consequences than you may have ever expected.

 

But you have not only become an adult. You have learned about history and many other things and the innocence of childish conversations has been veiled by horrible facts. There are not only a few mountains and a sea between you and me anymore, there are 6 million death that are putting huge barriers between you and me.

 

You can’t do as if it weren’t. It actually is. And it is true even if you would have preferred it were all a lie in order to preserve the memory of forlorn conversations. I believe were there. I’m sure they were. In any case, there is no escape anymore: if it is not possible to do as if something had never happened, it must be possible to restore things in such ways that it becomes possible to deal even with outer reality inside of the same innocence that had marked these conversations.

 

And if it were true that you are right? If it were all a lie? If you are nowhere? It will still be true that only the fact of keeping in awareness a possible innocence may build up a path of communication crossing a cemetery of 6 million dead. For yourself, as you will not be expecting another may necessarily accept such proposal.

 

How may those events affect the way we finish by dealing with reality? I don’t know but I already suspect it must be horrible.

 

To build up a perspective that may put an end to the necessary incomprehension or even hatred arising from given interpretations, inside of which there is no way out: no path that allows joining innocence and no way back. If you insisted in saying that it has no importance I would answer telling you that what has happened once, may happen again. How do you know what was at the origin of it all and thus, whether it will not appear again, I myself moving unconsciously things into that direction? If you said I’m no enemy, I’d answer I’m because I still don’t know why I was and how finally what was affects my own personal reality, however innocent my intentions may look like.

 

I don’t trust myself because the unconscious is as big as what is hidden of an iceberg inside of the ocean.

 

It’s easy to say: can’t you hide away behind the simplicity of a saying like “it’s all God’s will”? How tempting. Is it? And may even sound cynical if I say it myself, even if I believe it in the depth. I wouldn’t say so if I weren’t exactly inside of the same situation than you. Go through it and say then ‘it is all God’s will’. It won’t be that easy anymore. In order to say such a ‘truth’ you can’t but situate yourself inside of a perspective that makes the cynical disappear.

 

Perhaps I believe I’m innocent in the depth, perhaps. Were I innocent I’m still horribly ill. It’s possible to think there is influence you don’t have the strength to resist to. Not to have the strength to resist to it may preserve your innocence in this that you may say you’re not at the origin of something: it does not take away from you the responsibility deriving of your incapability to avoid it happening.

 

I don’t believe I’m innocent. For many years I will stubbornly insist on the fact that you can’t artificially maintain alive a nation that has been at the origin of a massacre of 6 million people. Even if it implies my own death. It’s not to do you a favor. At least on that point I have to admit you’re right.

 

How complicated things are, finally. Even to maintain you’re right. Your position implies a general moral responsibility inside of social patterns where this does not exist. I wouldn’t say you’re wrong, in fact it derives of Ancient Testament. Ancient Testament hasn’t a lot of ground either in contemporary societies.

 

Sometimes you’re right.

 

But precisely. Ancient Testament says, too “if your hands are full of blood come to me and I will wash them”. Perhaps the one is not possible without the other.

 

If it were, how? You can’t for yourself presume your innocence. You will have to assume the guilt deriving of facts until the possible innocence is shown to you.

 

Perhaps I will die. But it is still true that I’m sure souls communicate among each other. The one does not take away from the other its possible validity even if I’m who I’m. In any case it’s a nice way to let time pass. I certainly don’t believe in artificial constructions built up on the doubt of the actual reasons of horrible crimes.

 

In 1992 I’m still working at how it may be possible hands full of blood be washed and in fact I care little about careers. It was just a tool to get the language allowing to explain how souls communicate but other questions are worrying me much deeper.

 

Arriving to Turkey a glimpse of an answer is starting to build itself up. There is a starting point: a moment where innocence allowed the exchange of opinions in complete unawareness of other circumstances. There is a horrible darkness arising after implying the death of this innocence and the possibility is born to put the innocence as a finality, as a goal, as a possible future implying a destiny. I’m sure I won’t lie if I start trying to understand what has happened without loosing of my vision field the innocence I keep the memory of. If I did, this innocence would disappear again.

 

Even if it implies to admit a guilt I will have to deal with, I’m sure already that I may presume it is washed if in a similar situation I’m at least able to keep distances to whatever happens. “If your father or your mother sins and you don’t take distances to it, the sin remains on you.” Perhaps you can even avoid something happening. The distance should be enough.

 

I will not believe your saying I’m guilty because it is me. That was my guilt. To presume someone could be guilty just because it was him. The way to make justice disappear by pretending there is no law between you and me: is it enough for you to be you in order to be guilty?

 

If it is not, than I’m not guilty either because it is me.

 

Would you keep this wisdom for yourself? The possibility of a relief? The chance given to more than one to say no while confronted to the same situation in order to make guilt disappear? The development of a possibility having arisen many years before out of a lack of attention of German nobles and saying itself in the building up of a ‘female aristocracy’ takes its sources there. “Es gibt emperor”, someone who finally believes that you are right and that moral responsibility exists, but also the possibility of buying up guilt.

 

Not only. Even if I stood alone in the middle of an ocean of guilt in my attempt of buying it up, there are others who seem to want to destroy the very attempt. It’s obvious. How may you react in such circumstances to a conspiracy against the state of Israel? Inside of the belief, certainly, that it is almost an obligation to stay wicked if you have been wicked once.

 

If the one had been German I would have concluded, and that was obvious, too, that not ‘all’ may understand what is implied by moral relief. But the one is French. Are you really so interested in this that my hand or my intelligence do continue the task I had started a few years before? Perhaps you were already responsible for what happened then. Perhaps you’re hiding away crimes that have never become shame like mine and are working in the darkness inside of an obscure intentionality, on and on, because you have never been obliged to confront yourself to them and think on top you may call it intelligence to be able to hide away such crimes. Do you want to make me responsible again for whatever may happen? I’m Emperor. Shall stay beside me whoever will be wanting to prove it is possible to buy up the most horrible crimes.

 

From then on, France will represent whatever attempt may be made in order to put barriers to my own. The belief, in the depth, you may call it intelligence to hide away the most horrible crimes while making use of the obvious ‘guilty’ in order to continue eternally with the same purpose.

 

In a very confused coming and going of thoughts, this disposition is given name from Avanos to Rhodes (Paris-Jerusalem, walking). When I will write down the story, I will leave it exactly as it was: the troubled naming of something that has no clear shape at all.

 

How strange. May it really be a way of doing to build up a plot where Pakistani arrive by millions to Israel in order to claim for the territory? Were it a spiritual one? Pakistan? Well, that makes over 300 million. An appalling strength. Precisely. How horrible. How may I pretend a wound may be healed through the ghastly appearance of  a terrible army were it horseback?

 

There are things you guess, you presume, you may have the intuition of whose reality does never become tangible because you have not been through it. It’s not anymore to work out the question whether it is possible to buy up a possible guilt: what has happened in the mind of those who were the victims of such events?

 

Somewhere between Avanos and Rhodes I’m already almost sure that what gets lost is innocence, too. Perhaps we’re silly as human beings but we need to know there are secure and stable referential taking their source in a mirror image of justice and the human and the fact of knowing you have been killed in masses just because you were who you were does certainly shake this need and breaks probably all certainty in what you may call the appearance of justice on earth. It’s like that. I guess. If this is so, what happens after?

 

I’m sure then that love takes its source in that innocence, too. If innocence is none, there is no love you can trust. If there is no love, there is no future. If there is no future, the intentionality started with in 1933 will become real in little time anyhow, without anyone having to move a finger.

 

The somewhat risky choice to leave all ambiguity pending on a possible conquest of Jerusalem is already dealing with this evidence. It’s not that I die, perhaps: even if it were so I would like to see you laughing again, like before, a before I don’t remember but which is still there, somehow. To laugh means the childish innocence is back again, and this is possible only if we play a children’s game.

 

Millions of Pakistani are going to arrive horse back and are going to make you horribly afraid. Like before, you remember? When the plastic gun could still shoot at someone, really, horribly really. Hope you will start laughing after.

 

History has its own logic. If I presume it were true for a while Pakistani may arrive it will not make me forget that the world is built up in such ways that if Germany does not manage to give a proof of identity in time, it will simply disappear. Give me just a little bit of time, perhaps it is not too late.

 

I know now that I was right. You are there and I’m here and time has not come yet to make of it an irreversible proof. (I’m Jerusalem) If I manage to make an exact copy of your way of thinking and inside of it, you appear again, I may say the possibility is born of building up a more general proof. In the meantime I’m moving inside of a structure of reality where the proof has a subjective validity and only. The passionate, troubled confrontation to a reality you refuse and I want to believe in of a first part conquering by sea, where the ‘give me the chance of doing it again in order to see whether I would really do it again’, becomes the proof of some kind of innocence that will structure a world as subjective conviction in the second part, which, conquering by earth, pretends already to a more general validity of its being. It’s peaceful, almost and even though it is bitter: you still don’t know that you’re not right.

 

I will have to go trough what you have been through and I will see whether it is possible to regain innocence after. I know angels build up paths depending on how much you want them. One of yours, precisely, is going to poison me to death. I know it. It’s like that. I asked for it and angels listen to these voices. Logically I will develop a horrible allergy against doctors. It’s like that. I simply can’t see them.

 

It’s better now. At least I can understand you, somehow.

 

If I see you in 2003 I know I will have built up the basis for a more general proof. If I see you in 2003, I will just have to wait for the right moment to come. Angels do even know about electronics, you’ll see.

 

You’ll come in 2003.

 

Of course I do hardly know anymore what I’m doing and this builds up a further proof for the fact that intentionality can be horribly deeply rooted inside of the unconscious. It’s what I wanted to know. May I say the intentionality of destroying innocent life is essential to my being? The one of writing the story was apparently quite essential, the other doesn’t appear again. While putting the little pieces of the puzzle together, pieces that may be perhaps the proof for the contrary of what I would like to belief, the background questions of a single questioning are worked out following a purpose that escapes my consciousness.

 

There you are again. This time you have become a picture put in internet in Korea while you’re jumping around, as I used to call it, found while making a research on tae kwon do for a page. Don’t ask me how it happened, it just happened as it had to happen because it is the exact image of how the psychic world communicates. You go from one thing to the other that is linked to another and finally you get an answer to a question from the other end of the world. What’s your name? You’ll finish by saying.

 

You were wrong. It’s obvious. That’s worth 2000 pages of literature (Firework in amaretto) that may be convincing for some and less for others. We are like that in psychic realms. The less you impose the better you feel.

 

You, precisely. Because you had doubted of my existence. Psst, really.

 

To find your picture is an irreversible proof for you for the fact that what I say is true. It’s all I wanted. Now you know it. I’m, I always was. (How personal.) It’s what I wanted to say, finally: only because the personal question arises it will be possible to build up irreversible proves. For some, for you, specifically.

 

I really don’t care whether it is the sun turning around the earth or the other way round but I care about yours knowing that I was quite furious when you said I was just an imagination. Your mother said puppets have no soul. Even mothers are wrong sometimes.

 

It’s worth the while spending a life time trying to give an answer to such a question.

 

Precisely: I would have to go through all the rest anyhow because you wouldn’t believe me otherwise.

 

In fact it becomes obvious after a time that both questions are linked in such ways that they may become menacing only for those who may be wanting to hide away crimes: if this psychic world exists as such and a reality where souls are subjected to laws that escape empirical understanding is somehow linked to this, then the moral depends on its own legislation that has its own irreversible and determined laws. There where it becomes possible to join a path that makes even the worse reversible to certain extents, it becomes possible also to see what others may be wanting to hide: a constant menace that may be at the origin of the worse aggressions.

 

Firework in amaretto just transfers the evidence of this inner reality to a proof in the outer world where it usually has little space inside of exactly the construction of reality where this becomes possible: a disposition somehow bathing between reality and fantasy.

 

Is this acquired, the trilogy “I’m Jerusalem” obtains its reason to be. Inside of what was, the conversation left without it having been given an end, is it still possible to find a way to make misunderstandings disappear?

 

What were we talking about? That even the worse enemies may find a way to understand each other. Some, others can’t. I don’t believe you necessarily have to commit suicide following Shakespeare’s understanding if it happens you become friends or lover of the mortal enemy just in front. I believe finally that love finds a space to be inside of circumstances that should not allow it being. Sometimes. And this is what Pakistan says, in the depth. I will have to conquer you with, whether you want it or not. If you reject all, you become German. If you don’t take care, you risk your life. The only valid path in the middle is the awareness of an insight that may be strong enough so as to master even hatred. It should be possible. It’s a proposal, finally. Other may share with me (The seahorse) and you are in no obligation to accept.

 

In the depth I’m more radical than you. You will think, at the end, that the very fact not having to see a Nazi uniform on TV is the warrant for the fact Nazism is over. I will say I don’t believe a SS uniform was responsible for what happened because I’m sure you don’t need uniforms to be wicked and that Gestapo lived a nice life a long time after, still now, and that these were perhaps much more responsible for what happened than SS. This justifies for me the complete disappearing of the Bundesrepublik. You wouldn’t be so radical; I’m, certainly.

 

You said it yourself, finally. That day you laughed as if something horribly shameful had been attached to your uniform: “I’d never keep a prison,” you said. “I wouldn’t, either,” I finally answered.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: