‘is such an existence not allowed? life and joyfulness would be nothing without death and suffering. one thing defines it’s opposite, though i suppose this is more of a philosophical approach.’

‘it would seem that death and suffering are antithetical to your position of a just and loving God.’

‘just – we can begin with that. a just God allows not for life and joyfulness. i assume by your use of the phrase of “just and loving” that you mean God according to Christian persuasion. under the rules that he first imposed, life and joy ought not exist. death and suffering are perhaps not even allowed. (according to my personal philosophy, nihilitas meritus status totorum hominium est.) may i make a proposition – perhaps events such as plane crashes, car accidents, sudden deaths, and cancer are not necessarily greater in proportion to the goodness of everyday life. perhaps all of the bad karma (so to speak) of the cosmos is released in short time periods while the good karma is released over longer periods of time. why did september eleventh happen?’

‘according to some, because september tenth happened; though i suppose that you are looking for something deeper than that.’

‘what happened on september eleventh was a horrible event that ended many lives. however, no one really looks at the previous minutes, days, and years of life and joy that came before that time of death and suffering. one must look at the entire plane of existence rather than viewing simply a point on that plane. that death and suffering exist in contraposition to life and joyfulness i have ever counted among my great joy and sorrow.'

‘you know i am always open for philosophizing.’

‘is it perfectly acceptable to perform abortion on an animal?’

‘i like neither of the pathways i see before me. i do not condone such action though if i respond in negative fashion, you will ask if man is then no better than an animal. if i respond that the choice should alone be up to the parent animal, you will point out such absurdity. it is acceptable to perform such an abortion.’

‘so then by this admission you are allowing that an animal is an animal before it exits the womb. why then is a human not a human before it exits the womb. it is in a state of being (therefore a being) and i believe it is not classified outside of homo sapiens. it is therefore a human being. to kill a human being is against most (if not all) objective laws whether of God or man. such killing is willful homicide since it is by choice and is punishable by either an extensive prison sentence or by the death penalty. by your admission that animal abortions are acceptable i have come to the conclusion that the doctors, nurses, and mothers (perhaps with other family members and practitioners of medicine) of aborted human beings are to be punished by applicable laws.

'how? i am hardly able to know others, what would make me think i can know myself?’

'in desiring to know different entities, you must have found that the one least understood is thyself.'

'indeed, i have ever found the ego to be unpredictable by the ego.'

'no? you desire to? to understand is a terrible thing, more terrible than you can ever know. let God be the one who understands - it is far inside his abilities; we are ignorant when we say that we desire knowledge.'

'it was simply a statement.'

'with an implied desire for something more.'

'yes, i suppose you are right.'  

‘an excellent question: if he has everything, then he needs nothing.’

‘indeed. the man who has everything does not have nothing. but nothing is something. therefore he cannot have everything for he lacks nothing. one cannot have everything until one has nothing. this is the everything paradox: he who has everything has not everything for he who has everything does not have nothing; the path to having everything must begin with possession of nothing.’