Philosophical Dialogue - The Deepest Question

Light: Hello?

Dark: Welcome back

Light: Thank you. I almost didn't think it would happen, to be honest

Light: But I'm glad to be here

Dark: I'll always be here. I'll always wait for you

Light: Sorry to say I find that hard to believe

Dark: It's true all the same

Light: If it's true, it must be proven

Dark: We might be able to do it

Dark: But that's not why you're here now

Dark: You'll find out soon enough anyway

Light: It's true, and you're right

Light: This time I'm here for a different reason

Light: And you'll be my conversation partner

Dark: As before. I'm ready to that extent

Light: What would you say is the deepest question?

Dark: Answer that yourself

Light: Yes, the deepest question must be what we can know, and how

Dark: And do you intend to answer that now?

Light: Yes, and if possible, provide evidence for the things I'm going to claim

Light: Philosophy reached its provisional end point with the man who was awakened too early by a queen, and who died from it

Light: He was of the opinion: The only thing we can know is that we are an entity that experiences something

Dark: You want to expand on this

Light: Yes, what I want to know is whether there are any other entities in the universe

Light: And I want to provide evidence of their presence

Dark: You're talking to me

Light: Don't be rude

Dark: Sorry. Our thought is of course broader than that

Light: Let's say I'm talking to you, through words, numbers or light signals

Light: You respond in a similar way. Words can meet with numbers, light or new words

Light: I still don't know if it's myself I'm talking to, and if what comes back is just an echo of myself

Light: But in this echo that is you, is an important quality

Light: You can tell me things that I don't know, or that come as a surprise to me

Dark: I see what you're trying to do

Light: Yes, this could be an indication that you were someone other than me

Light: Because you told me things I didn't know, when we discussed a matter

Light: Why would I hide things from myself?

Dark: Yes, it's in the name that you don't

Light: Don't make me mention your name

Light: Unfortunately, I can wake up at night and have outbursts

Light: Oh my, and these outbursts can surprise me

Light: Also, I often get ideas that I don't know where they come from

Dark: To put it mildly. But then we're back to step one

Light: Yes, because then we can't know if it's myself I'm talking to

Light: What if you were to say something completely surprising

Dark: Your absence has surprised me

Light: Sorry. I just wanted to get it out of the way anyway

Light: Let's think deeper

Dark: Now we're talking

Dark: I know your ability is great

Dark: I've never seen anyone like you

Light: It's in the name

Light: Let's say there was no one here but me.

Light: Then everything I said would be thrown forever, in a straight line away from me

Light: And I would fall freely, for lack of anything to stand on

Dark: This is not good enough. Because you might fall freely

Dark: And speaking directly into the air for that matter

Dark: Even if this is what is happening, you can experience it in a different way

Dark: And having the imagination of another point of view and someone else

Light: Let's say I was in a truly empty universe

Light: With only me present

Light: So I decided to send out a signal

Light: Let's say with a searchlight

Light: Far away, the light from my star hit a rock

Light: But no light would come back

Dark: Unless you imagine it coming back

Light: No, I can't

Light: If only I were present, no concept would have a point of attachment either

Light: The concepts we use are an outgrowth of an underlying reality

Light: And when concepts require resistance, mirroring and reflection

Light: Is it because the possibility of words and thoughts is part of the possibilities in reality

Light: Otherwise concepts themselves would be impossible

Dark: I see what you are trying to do, and it is a beguiling thought

Dark: But if every concept we use implies a degree of reality

Dark: I can say: I am a God who is omnipotent

Dark: I am not, therefore every concept cannot imply such a fact

Light: But you are a God who is omnipotent

Dark: Yes? Because it doesn't seem that way

Light: We have to break down concepts into their components

Light: You are a God, because you represent some force

Light: In a perspectivist universe, which I believe in, every force is a deity

Light: And omnipotence, or all power, does exist. It is the totality of the universe

Dark: But I am not omnipotent

Light: No, but you acknowledge that omnipotence is present, and that you are part of it

Light: As a representation of the totality

Dark: I would like you to clarify your use of terms

Dark: Can you say more about what you have done here

Light: Certainly. You might agree that in our encounter with reality

Light: We should define through positives, not negatives

Light: When we describe something, we should preferably clarify what something is, rather than what it is not

Light: Warm must be described as something with a lot of movement, rather than its opposite, the absence of movement

Light: We should only use the opposite if we don't know how to do it otherwise

Dark: That seems reasonable

Light: My definition of reality, by positive and affirmative use of concepts, meets this criterion

Light: It is a positive definition

Dark: Not completely

Dark: Because it is not concepts you are referring to, but the underlying reality

Light: Yes, and I have no access to it, other than indirectly, by its opposite

Dark: So you define positively as far as you can, and use the indirect method where you have to

Dark: So indirectly I can at least say that you make it probable that an underlying counterforce exists

Dark: Because the concepts, built on to reality, imply a probable counterforce

Light: And that is as far as I can go, I think

Dark: Do you feel certain about all this?

Light: No. But let's say we accept the idea

Dark: Yes, let's say so

Light: Then you probably agree that there must be at least two entities in the universe

Light: Because if not, we wouldn't be able to use concepts at all

Light: Every ray of light would shoot through the universe, and not encounter any counterforce

Light: And even if we imagined a false counterforce, even the concept of counterforce would be impossible to express

Light: Because it was not part of reality at all, and therefore could not be expressed even as a possibility

Light: Everything we express exists, at least as potential

Light: So therefore the potential for a counterforce, and another, must exist

Light: That's what I believe

Dark: That's fascinating

Light: But then I'm not getting any further

Light: I have thereby shown, or at least made it probable, that there must be at least two entities in the universe

Dark: Well, then you've gone further than he who was indirectly killed by the queen, by being awakened too early

Light: Yes, I would say that we've gone further, and broken the curse of the Age of Enlightenment

Light: But then we come to a new obstacle. Two entities. Can we prove more?

Light: Here I come to a temporary halt

Light: It's possible that I, along with the gods, will think further about the matter

Dark: But you've come a long way. You moved on

Dark: That's what counts, and what I have you for

Light: And you are the one who can spur me on

Dark: Therefore I have a share of the honor

Dark: This is what I want to tell you

Light: What?

Dark: Hail thou, Light Elf

Light: Hail thou, Dark Elf

Dark: May our days be many

Light: And filled with power