This is not a chapter from my book but looks strikingly similar to something one might read there. It's a piece of dialogue between my now deceased college pal and I. Or is it me? Me or I?--I'm a writer, I don't need to know how to write...good?

NORM:  Oh Great One, answer me this…

JEREMY:  [snickers] So sarcastic. Why always with the sarcasm, you?

N: Was that even a sentence?

J:  Enough of one.

N: What was the question?

J:  Yeah, what was the question?

N: Ah…Oh. Right, I didn’t ask it. Um… Why is it that we have all these various systems? I mean religiously, politically, individually. Everything is a pattern and I guess it made sense when we lived in isolation, but you know now that the world is a world…What the hell am I trying to ask?

J:  No, I get it. You mean we’re now officially a global village so why do we stick to our old ways.

N: Yeah. Why aren’t we setting up something new? I mean capitalist globalization is just the dominance of one system over others, right? That’s nothing new. It’s still a conqueror’s mentality.

J: Yes. Look, any line of thinking breeds a system. A line of thinking is a group of thoughts that seem to link together nicely.

N: Chain of thought.

J:  Yes, sir! Line of thinking; chain of thought—however you wanna put it. In terms of our society, a bunch of people agreed that a certain chain of thought makes sense and so that became the system. Any change is superficial. What we need isn’t a new system but the dissolution of systems through understanding, not anarchy.

N: Is it fair to say that our system is the standard by which we judge the normalcy of another’s behavior?

J:  That is certainly a function of any system, be it logical or illogical. And that’s dangerous because the system—the interlocked thoughts that become rules—may be agreed upon to be the best way to live, but that doesn’t make it true .

N: Insane people can agree on what sanity is—

J:  And often do!

[Norm chuckles]

J:  Here’s the thing I’m poking at: One is either for the system, against the system, or living blindly to it within it—which is actually being passively for the system. And any system no matter how well intentioned in origin always leads to dictatorship, precisely because of the for/against dynamic that exists inherently in the word “system.”

N: You said the word “system” a lot.

J:  I did. Sorry if it became a tongue twister.

N: So really you’re saying that even a line of thinking that seems benevolent on its face is secretly malevolent in that its proponents are on a mission to convert.

J:  Yes. Systems are collective ideals. One is either for these ideals or against them. Those who disagree with the ideals are wrong. That which is wrong is bad. Thus is born an enemy.

N:  Isn’t that an oversimplification?

J:  No. It really is that simple. Seeds are always smaller than the fruit they bear.

N:  Well what about so-called enlightened people? Where do they fit in?

J: When one understands the origin of the system one is out of it.

N: Well I understand everything you just said. Am I out of it?

J:  Understanding is not comprehension. They are not the same. You may comprehend this logically but understanding precedes logic. Those who understand, who as you say, are “enlightened” need not verbalize a thing. They are of the same mind organically, not forcefully. Systems are forceful. They’re funhouse mirrors, warped reflections of harmony.

N:  I’m not sure I agree. I mean harmony is a general term that doesn’t really mean anything. A system is something you can set in stone, as it were. Harmony seems more idealistic and ethereal.

J:  Not idealistic. Look, language is a barrier because it is limited. How does one describe the indescribable?

N:  Well that’s a whole other conversation.

J:    Okay, agreed. The important thing to understand here is that there is illogic, logic, and that which transcends logic, which conveniently enough is called “translogic.” Systems are conceived through logical or illogical chains of thought. Now, to the logical mind, illogic and translogic sound the same: like so much babble. To the illogical mind, logic and translogic sound the same: like evil.

N:  It doesn’t help that all three minds utilize the same vocabulary.

J:   This is a dilemma.

N:   Okay, wait…go back, this is too fast for me. You said enlightened people are out of the system through understanding. So what do they do? Where do they go, The Matrix? They fight Smiths with Keanu Reeves?

J:  Ugh…God, I hope not.

N: Seriously, how do they live if not within a system?

J:  They live in choice. That which we call choice is an illusion. That’s a looooong discussion so let’s not get into that either. For now it’s enough to say that those who live enlightenment may or may not live within the system. It’s up to them.

N: But if they are aware they’re in a system, a consensus of how things ought to be, the rules of consensus don’t affect them, is that what you’re saying? They live in society as willing participants but there’s a wink and a nudge going on.

J:  Let’s say the system does not influence them the way it does us because it is not in them to take sides. The for/against dynamic is dissolved in such a person. They have no center, no ego from which to move and so taking sides is only a form of amusement.

N:  Sounds like the archetype of the Trickster.

J:  Yeah.

N: Isn’t that evil though?

J: No! It is contrary. Only those who are stuck in this for/against mentality (which is most of us) see either evil or chaos depending upon our propensity to reason. But to the Trickster, if you really want to call it that…ah…that person who is awake, enters the sleeping state consciously and roams freely.

N:  Wait! Wait! I’m seeing this!  The illogical and the logical share the same space. They divide and subdivide according to their particular worldview. But he who transcends all worldviews, who sees them for what they are, is out of the loop. If that person decides to function in a pattern of consensus, it’s a conscious endeavor. It’s a free act and that free act looks either evil or misguided, depending upon the worldview of the society in which that person lives, because that society is stuck in its own for/against loop, right?

J:  Its own standard of normalcy. It’s own standard.

N:  Yeah. And so a superstitious society calls such a person evil, or a heathen. A reasonable society would call such a person misguided, an eccentric, maybe even mentally ill. Because Translogic is contrary.

J:  Not that translogic is really against anything. It just sees. It’s like you have motion in one direction—logical--and motion in another--illogical. Logic thinks illogic is misdirected and illogic thinks logic is evil. Both minds set up rules of governance and subsets of rules and on and on, according to what they are taught. Now we’re saying there’s a third thing, which is no motion. How does no motion look to motion in either direction?

N:  No motion looks evil to illogic and misdirected to logic.

J:  That’s right. But is it either?

N: It can’t be. Evil and misdirection are products of motion. They only exist in motion.

J:  And motion doesn’t exist at all. Motion is the dream.

N: Try telling that to the people in motion. This is gonna look like so much New Age babble.

J:   Yeah.  Or maybe just plain evil.