Half-wolf—Half-lamb, an Ordinary Man
The I and I, the me, understand, the WE of the mind, volunteered without habdabs, for the advancement of a non-brimborian scientific theory, for a simple, albeit, simple is a word that should never be used without qualification, ulterior motives lurk in every nook and cranny of simplicity, experiment, no zoopery understand you, in which, the anafractuous brain would be divulsed, by a small laser, down to the submaxillary triangle, and fitted with two metal plates that would disallow the left and right side of the brain and face from conversing with each other—a derodidymus, a two headed, halved, human brain and face of a monster, if you will. The We, you see, committed itself to separating innocence from guilt. And, We, supposing innocence to be a right brain function and guilt a left; however we are not sure, we only believe that right and left can be used in such a manner supposing the left to belong to the class: artiste, and the right to belong to the class: communis. The We, it must be understood, wishes to halt what can only be looked upon as a contruding of thoughts when the two halves are wholed. Halved, the We can now be reconstructed with hopes of a bilocular brain, being able to isolate a thought to this side or that side as We deem necessary. We now begin our nyctophoniac conversation with one another as We lie in bed. Tomorrow, the surgeon, along with a team of scientist looking in, will suture the face and brain back together, and the scientists will conduct their own expiscation of our minds.
Is that an exordium fit for your style? I ask of the simple I on the other side of the metal plates.
It is bombastic to the maximum, but yes, it fits the criteria I laid out for the complex and guilty I on the other side of the two metal plates.
Good, now We can continue our conversation from a moment ago. Let me pick up the fantabulous thread where We left it. The simple I was saying that innocence must be separated and singled out for it to have meaning in and of itself; otherwise, it tends to the demersal and is overlooked by high and horizon looking thought, or as the simple I put it: It is convoluted by guilt and other human attributes owing origin to convoluted thinking. It is most beatific when standing alone. But says the complex I, and understand my rationale to be the more firm of the two that makes the We, a lamb without a wolf is still but a lamb, we have simply removed the fence and the shepherd and gained nothing.
We have done more than this. By separating guilt from innocence, the burden is lifted off of our shoulders and we now can breathe more easily, and we can now illustrate than innocence exists on its own. It does not need the useless guilt that humans carry with them.
Ha, says the complex I, We, have isolated the innocent I, and separated it from guilt, but what is innocence without guilt? Do we not need a Guilt and Innocent standard of measurement for the one or other to have first an axiopisty, and second an dimension greater than non or plane. What, pray tell, does innocence gain on its own?
A judgment devoid of guilt, a reign free of hypocrisy and self-incrimination, and a carefree existence. The complex I cannot understand any of these things to be sure.
First of all, a judgment without the option of guilt is no judgment at all: It is Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the complex I protests. Second, hypocrisy and self incrimination must be possible for one to feel the joys of not adhering to them, and a carefree existence is a nullibist state of being for the soul to exist needs pairs of opposites.
God is all good and all knowing and enjoys a carefree existence.
God, first of all has an opposite, and I, the complex I, the rational I, I must admit, or would argue that God does not live a carefree existence but carries the most weight in upholding the universe and all that is, besides it’s opposite; therefore, God knows the weight of existence like none other having held it up from the start. This unbearable existence is why the innocent I turned itself over to the communal in the first place, is it not? It had to be judged by something it deemed unworthy of itself.
The simple I views this as a mistake of being, and wishes to return to innocence alone. We can live without the wolf. As a matter of fact, I feel fine without the complex I.
The complex I can only consider the mistake of neotony the simple I is given over to, and must wrench from the simple I the example of the HE that bore it all, the Exemplary HE who bore the sins of others to call the simple I to the moment when His innocence was sullied by dirty hands and when He let the judgment, first of the world then of his Father, who He forsook when overcome in His innocence to the standard of guilt all of the I’s in the world had been judged by, and when He felt the sting of Judgment issued forth His exclamatory “Father, The Innocent I of Heaven, why have you let Me be sullied by sin. Was it not in his expiation that the HE took HIS INNOCENCE and offered it up as ransom for the Guilt that HE had never been privy to feel? Did not even the HE for us all need to feel the opposite before He could understand the innocence of the moment being yielded up as just payment?
The simple I must admit that the universal He did offer up innocence as payment. The simple I is falling asleep now and does not wish to wake. But the simple I wishes to make known to the complex I that the universal HE understood HE would be forsaken and left to deal with guilt alone. The HE, like the simple I, is never prepared for such a moment and it will always take us by surprise and cause us to exclaim our forsakenness. The virgin understands this even when she gives up her virginity to a worthy suitor. She feels dirtied. The universal HE and the Father of all I’s have been reconciled, just as the virgin will be when she realizes she has done nothing wrong and forsakenness is the price of true innocence.
Sleep if the simple I must. The complex I looks forward to morning. Ha, innocence without guilt. How utterly ridiculous; however, if the gimmaces of innocence could be removed from the guilty, that is guilt with no innocence, then I might do as I accord with no punishment, for judgment is a multitudinous account of the human record not singular, and without innocence staking claim on acts, there can be no judgment for the complex I.
Get over here quick, the surgeon yelled at the scientists.
What is it? they exclaimed as all examines the face of the patient.
It appears the halves have fused somehow back together during the night. I cannot pry the metal apart for the life of me.
Shall we laser it apart again? one scientist asked.
Wait, said another. Let us see how much the fusing has cohered the actual thought process of the patient. Let me try asking him a phrase or two, if necessary.
They stirred the patient and he opened his eyes. One eye pointed left and the other right. Can you see my finger? the scientist asked as he waved it in front of the eyes.
We can, the voice responded in different tones.
Good. What do you think of when I say to you a green pasture full of lambs.
Mutton. Lambchops. Savior. The voice said all three with the same tone.
I believe We might need another subject, the scientist said as he looked up at the group, perplexed.
There were no other volunteers.