Chapter 10 Nine

Guys, of course I'm joking, and I know I'm not going to make it work, but, you know, don't take everything as a joke.I probably had to make this joke.Gentlemen, some questions are tormenting me; please clear them up for me.For example, you want people to get rid of old habits and change their will so that it conforms to scientific requirements and sober views.But how do you know that man can not only be transformed but must be transformed in this way?On what grounds have you come to the conclusion that man's desire must be corrected in this way?In a word, how do you know that such corrections can really bring benefits to people?Let's just say it all, why are you so sure that if it doesn't run counter to the real and normal interest (which is guaranteed, because it is proved by reason and arithmetic), it will really be in the permanent interest of man?Is there a universal law that applies to all human beings?You know, this is just one of your assumptions for the time being.Even if this is the law of logic, it may not be the law of human logic at all.You guys, maybe you think I'm crazy?Allow me to presuppose.I agree: man is an animal, primarily a creative animal, destined to consciously pursue goals and engage in the art of engineering, that is, to constantly carve out a path for himself.No matter where the road leads.But the reason why he sometimes wants to deviate from the right path and take the inclined road is precisely because he is destined to open the road, and probably because no matter how stupid the unthinking practical man is, sometimes he still thinks that the road is almost always It is going somewhere, but the main question is not where it leads, but that the road always goes forward, and I hope that the children of good morals, although they despise the art of engineering, will not indulge in harm. Man's idleness, and idleness, as we all know, is the root of all evil.It is indisputable that people love to create and open paths.But why is he so destructive and chaotic?I want to ask you guys about this!But I have a couple of words of my own on this matter which I would like to say separately.Perhaps the reason why he loves destruction and chaos so much (and he sometimes loves it very much, which cannot be disputed, because that is the case), is not, perhaps, because he is subconsciously afraid of achieving his goal, afraid of finishing the edifice he built?How do you know, perhaps, that he likes the mansion he builds only when viewed from a distance, and never up close; For aux animaux domestiques, such as ants, sheep, etc., etc.But ants have completely different tastes.They have roughly the same kind of wonderful edifice, a edifice that can never be destroyed—an ant nest.

Very respectable ants begin and presumably end up in a nest, and this gives them great credit for their industriousness and hard work.But man is a wild and unseemly animal, perhaps like a chess player who only loves the process of reaching his goal, not the goal itself.And, who knows (no one can guarantee), maybe the whole purpose of human beings in this world is only in this uninterrupted process of reaching the purpose, in other words-only in life itself, not in the end itself, but in the end itself. Needless to say, the purpose itself is nothing more than two times two makes four, that is to say, a formula. However, everyone should know that two times two makes four is no longer life, but the beginning of death.At least, somehow, one is always afraid of two times two is four, and I am still afraid.We assume that man is busy all his life looking for this two two makes four, and in order to find this two two makes four, he will go across the sea and sacrifice his life, but, to be honest, he is a little afraid of finding it, afraid of really finding it.for he felt that once he had found it there would be nothing more to find.At least the workmen get paid when they're done, at least they go to the tavern, and then to the police station—that's what they do all week, but where do people go?At least every time he achieves such a goal, he can always see a kind of embarrassment on his face.He likes the process of achieving the goal, but he doesn't like it very much when it is achieved. Of course, it is very ridiculous, after all, human nature is ridiculous; there is obviously some kind of farce involved in all this. .But two makes four—it was, after all, a very unbearable thing.Twice two makes four--you know, in my opinion, it's kind of a scoundrel.Two two makes four, with a pretentious look, hands on hips, standing in the street and spitting at you.I agree that two for two makes four is a very good thing; but since everything has to be praised, two for two makes five—sometimes even better.

Why do you believe so strongly, so seriously, that only the normal and the positive—in short, only happiness is good for man?What is good and what is bad, can reason not make mistakes?You know, maybe, what people like is not only happiness?Perhaps, he also likes suffering?Perhaps suffering and happiness are equally beneficial to him?Sometimes one loves suffering very much, very much, and it is true.There is no need to check this matter in the general history of the world; just ask yourself, as long as you are human, and you have lived a certain age.As for asking my personal opinion, I think it is even a little out of place for a person who only likes happiness.Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, sometimes it's nice to destroy something.You know, to tell you the truth, I'm not advocating misery here, but I'm not advocating happiness either.What I'm advocating is...do whatever you want.And assert that, when I need to do what I want, I always have the security to do what I want.For example, there is no room for suffering in light comedy, and I know that.In the Crystal Palace, it is even more inconceivable: Suffering, this is doubt, this is negation, if you can also doubt the Crystal Palace, what is the Crystal Palace?Yet I am convinced that one can never reject real suffering, that is, destruction and chaos.Suffering -- you know, that's the only reason for consciousness.Although I said at the beginning that consciousness seemed to me the greatest misfortune of man, I also knew that man loves consciousness and would never exchange it for any satisfaction.For example, consciousness is much better than two two makes four.After two times two makes four, of course nothing can be done, not only is there nothing to do, but there is no need to even understand anything.All I could do at that time was to block my five senses and immerse myself in introspection.Well, while conscious activities produce the same result, that is, the same inaction, at least sometimes you can beat yourself up, which can make people more active after all.Although this is counterproductive, it is better than doing nothing.