The Wills of Nature and the Great Drama of Hell

The above linked article misquotes the Mahabharata for sure, as well as possibly the other texts mentioned, but the overall theme is worth considering. From the central discovery that wills of nature are set against one another in the kingdom of the wild, we can also observe multiple other ways in which these wills oppose each other. Most notably, male and female, which sets in motion the primary conflict of our species, resulting in attempts to resolve this predicament by imposing systems upon them.

The bias of the will of nature in the feminine collectivizes to favor a system that feels immediately agreeable to the instincts arising from that will, while the bias of the will of nature in the masculine collectivizes to favor a system that feels immediately agreeable to itself. The idea of “a better world” emerges as a property of the bias of the will of nature within the subject.

The more important question, however, is: what does the existence of such a terrible paradox say about “life” and the nature of this world? Who created it, and why is it allowed to exist? That is the question I have moved on to. It is no longer: “What should be done to solve this problem?” Any answer to that question leads only to endless, ad hoc arguments attempting to solidify “what ought to be,” arguments that cannot overcome the inevitable disagreements inherent in the biases themselves. NOTE: Both polarities instinctively feel that their favored system or solution embodies “proper nature.” Therefore, appealing to nature as an “ought” functions no differently than expressing an opinion, even if one believes it to be a factual foundation.

The wills of nature are set against one another, whether by design or as the outcome of some unknown process. The most common method by which they enforce the bias of their will is to unite under shared grievances or shared predicaments, often defined by identity. Whether one leans toward design or impersonal outcome, the resulting quandary remains the same: the majority of the species cannot break attachment to this collective biological hallucination because the feelings of certainty, aligned with one’s naturally occurring bias in the will, are perceived as immediately agreeable. We resist the attempt to unearth why these impulses of nature exist and how they set these dramas of existence in motion, for in doing so, we raise terrifying questions about the realm in which we reside—and about what we are.

In such a situation, it is discovered that we can charge others for possessing the moral faults inherent in the will of nature as a central feature of their existence. To cover for such charges or criticisms, a counter-charge is levied against the same will of nature in the other. There is no escape from the series of trade-offs that emerge from the original conditions giving rise to this madness. To be involved in these dramatic social wars is to be constantly irritated by the bias of the will of nature justifying itself in your tribe’s enemy. It will never end, and it will never acquiesce.

To cease identifying with the bias of the will of nature as the central motivator is to leave the drama of tribes—a state that approaches, as realistically as possible, “dying to the world.” All dramas and pursuits relating to mating, social inclusion, and meaning stem from interaction with and belief in this drama.

The end result of this inquiry is to understand why some deviant thinkers in the past considered the universe itself a drama, set in motion to continue feeding on itself in cycles, with suffering as a central feature of existence appearing intentionally. We are caught in a loop of attempting to resolve the unresolvable, and are forbidden to lose faith or hope in this aim—since doing so results in social expulsion. In other words, we resist the meta-analysis of the will of nature because it reduces existence to a form of a puppet show that may have no idea why it is enacting what it does.

For men, the first step of disillusionment is to become disenchanted from the feminine. There are social penalties for this phase because, if fully pursued, it disengages one from the entire drama. If one stares at the feminine and follows the analysis to its conclusion, one sees the will of nature. Stare into the will of nature long enough, and one sees the abyss. Stare into the abyss long enough, and if one avoids succumbing to panic, one sees that the will of nature and the conditions of life itself set the stage for the conflicts and paradoxes at hand. We then perceive archetype as an impersonal force that has been behind the scenes emerging through our being our entire lives. It may then be considered that something designed this place to deliberately set us at odds in every conceivable feature of identity, producing a continual harvesting of energy, unconsciously directed at cycles that cannot be avoided.

It is difficult, but one key step I have identified is to decouple identity from the bias of the will of nature within. Most hooks latch here, pulling one into conflict with other forces of nature of equal intensity, each guided by a different bias that cannot be defeated by argument if one honestly considers their unique position. So, rather than charging others with hatred as if uncovering a “gotcha” moment, I understand hatred. I say: “Of course you hate it; it is the inescapable result of the bias of the will of nature within you, despising that the counterpart to your needs has a conflicting aim.” There is no escape. This feeling is the feeling of resentment towards the disagreeable portion of something or someone whose other parts you accept. The hatred is inevitable, and forgiveness is not about pardoning it as an excuse or endorsement; it is about recognizing that it cannot be removed by battle or by any means available to us. The fault exists at the ground of existence itself. It automatically creates a tragedy whereby something that is “loved,” stands directly beside something you despise. It is not a fault of the other party or parties, but more of an inevitable result of both of your existences as they are.

For men to understand that preferences for cultural systems and the propositions built around them are themselves emergent properties of the bias of the will of nature, it is essential to decouple from the immediate agreeableness predisposed by the center of being—that is, nature itself. Delve into the real feminist literature to understand how the bias of the will of nature in the feminine manifests. Much of this is often labeled “witchcraft literature,” such as The Great Cosmic Mother, The Spiral Dance, Witchcraft for Tomorrow, and Witchcraft Today.

The wills of nature within each are set against one another with conflicting aims, each desiring a specific portion of what the other possesses while finding the rest disagreeable. All disagreements and bickering arise from the frustration that a need inherent to life—entirely agreeable in itself—rests alongside other features that are experienced as entirely disagreeable. This is one of life’s cruel tricks, ensuring suffering for both men and women alike. We are played against one another in this drama, and the collision of tragic suffering between men and women produces yet more suffering in life. This is the great drama of hell; the veneer of beauty makes you fall in love with that which produces greater levels of suffering. Then, they hate each other for this inevitable designed paradox.

With sufficient reading of religious texts, political treatises, philosophy, and related works, it becomes evident that what we are witnessing are the emergent properties of nature expressing themselves as thought and preference, arguing after the fact of their assumed origins. To perceive these as archetypal forces is terrifying, because reason itself cannot get behind such forces to justify or certify them as “correct.” They simply exist. However, their existence is not a moral endorsement—it is the cementing of a profoundly unsettling reality. We are the subjects of “the gods,” vessels through which these forces act and enter into conflict for reasons not apparent to us, if any such reasons exist. We experience this conflict subjectively, endlessly dreaming of a resolution that is literally impossible within the current framework. The will to live asserts itself unconsciously for the majority of people throughout their lives, while a small minority can cultivate a sense of identity that does not immediately default to tribal dynamics. As a result, conflicts between collective organisms are the norm and serve as the primary grounds for energy harvesting from our species. Not only are we played, we are helplessly predisposed to offering ourselves to whatever this is.

The existence of a moral absolute is not negated by the conflict of bias; it is only concealed by it. What passes for morality among men are the persuasive echoes of instinct defending itself. The true absolute, if such exists, is not found within the theater of justification, but beyond the will that argues.