The Nature of the End


By Kerwin Holmes, Jr.

The majority of us have no real concept of our beginning.  If we rely upon experiences alone, life simply began when it was first for us.  So then, what shall we say or expect to know concerning what our “end” will be?


When was your beginning?  Do you remember?  Do you know about your formation and your creation?   Are they different than the beginning of your existence?  And when did you formulate the sentience to become capable of experiencing your existence in order to know it?

Many persons will answer these questions with some sort of reincarnation religious thought.  I am not here to address those persons, but then again I am.  Because even those people had to be told their traditions for just how their particular form of reincarnation works– and they had to be educated about this reincarnation by their religious counsels.  I do empirically believe that most believers in reincarnation learned the history of their past lives (if they were ever verifiably historical persons) the same way that the rest of us learned about any historical figures.  Anything more can be accused of being simple imagination, and no counter-claim to refute such an accusation exists.

So then, the flimsy nature of the reincarnation claim makes it very much not very much likely at all to contain any veracity whatsoever.  (Not even to mention that the majority of the world’s humans do not believe in any form of reincarnation…which is a major blow since reincarnation relies wholesale upon memory, belief, and universality in that order.)  We are all stuck with a definite beginning which, as best as we can tell, is the causation of our current existence.  And we have great security to know that someday, in some way, we will come to an end.

But before we even consider the “end,” do we really know when we began?  Does our experience determine our times?  Because none of us have ever experienced the history before our own…so without that to experience, what is to stop us from concluding that all of existence began with our own?

Imagine with me a world wherein we were born into a time without any access to any historical knowledge, without even the experience of our parents, but with nothing more than the survivalist world and planet that we inhabit.  Surely, we would be aware of some sensitivity to our own temporality as we matured–

But perhaps all the more, we would begin to assume from the lack of alternative experiential presumptions that our experience began with the beginning of all existence and vice-versa.

By not having access to a historical reference point apart from our own birth/existence (which we may not remember, by the way), we may make the foolish but entirely human assumption that all of what was began with ourselves and our own beginning.  And if we do not even remember our birth, then that would be reason all the more for ourselves to conclude that we had forever existed as long as existence itself.  Only signs of some historic event observable within the time of our allotted lifespan would do good service to convince us otherwise.  Perhaps the knowledge that we must plant a seed into the ground to grow a dandelion…and then the remembrance that in some time before we began to plant seeds into the ground in the early days of our youth that there were already fields of dandelions sprouted about ourselves in our earliest memories…would convince us of an earlier history before ourselves.  But on that account we are only relying upon memory– and that memory sprouted from our own recognition of what was and our cognitive ability to retain such information unto the present.

And memory can be faulty.

So then, temporality may be intrinsically tied to our memory, especially with times past.  And if we may be completely honest, even our “present” is the “past”.  We are no more in the “now” than as the approaching moment comes while the “present” leaves us– and we leave behind in the splint of the moment whatever was the “present.”  It becomes nigh impossible for us humans to experience a truly pure form of the term “now,” even though we may be caught in the moment within our own thoughts.  When we are undecided upon an action at any given passing moment existential time does not cease moving forward with us…not even if the sun were to stand still in the sky.

So then, we may deduce that our memories are limited, surely, to determine our history and hence any experiential notion of what our “beginning” was.  But to even conclude from observing the life cycle of dandelions that were not at the source of all existence in the completely solitary universe that we are imagining would be a false step without the appropriate investigations.  Consider this: who is to say that ontologically it must be true that all dandelions come from dandelion seeds?  This is indeed the old chicken or the egg question that remains to be solved except in explanations within the realm of the esoteric, the mysterious, and the religious.

But just for now, do away with such notions for a moment and focus only upon your experience as the only one in the known universe.  Replace yourself into the known solitary universe that we have been imagining.  I say known because our experiences of our existence are only formed upon what we may know about it.  Though this universe where you are the sole inhabitant is imagined, you do “know” it in a sense because you are capable (by method of imagination) to perceive and to conceive it.  For all that you know, since so much of your knowledge is driven directly from your perception, if you were unaware that the solitary universe is the one that you are imagining in the real universe, then the two universes (the imaginary one and the reality) would be indistinguishable and interchangeable with one another.  It is this evident truth that makes similar stories of science-fiction movies to be horror films, even despite their intention to be action-packed thrillers, whether the film be The Matrix or Total Recall and the like.  So a faulty memory can be very damaging in our empirical knowledge of what the “beginning” was.

We ourselves know the immense amount of influence in even the very definition of reality that our perception has for us…and it rightfully awes us into timid fear.  Our great grounding is both the consistency of our experience and our inability to change or affect existence itself whatsoever, revealing that even if we were wrong our existence depends on something far greater that is beyond ourselves.  You may falsely remember closing your garage in the morning when you hadn’t, but that has no affect upon making the garage become closed when you return to your house.  The open garage will be waiting for you until you return.

We may imagine an infinity of universes, but in reality as far as we perceive there is only just one universe.

But is not our human knowledge limited even as we reach the peak of our physical maturity and psychological sentience?  We can certainly see the clearest example of this according to our memory.  You may remember what was the meal that you last ate, but you very unlikely remember as well the moment of your birth.  And for many, the memories that you have of your birth are only reinforced by other humans who were able to observe and retain the memory in better fashion than you were able to at that age.

Look at you now pondering these very simple questions along with me.  You most likely have pondered them before…even at a lower maturity or a younger age.  Yes, it is a very natural thing to do.  Such is the natural and healthy skepticism that is necessary when determining what is the common ground upon which existence stands.  What is the ground of being?

But this must be considered in the relationship of the beginning and then later to discover what we should expect at the end.  We have deduced that by experience only our ability to retain a solid memory can help us in determining the beginning if we do not have credible history to depend upon.  But this only matters if our memory itself is suitably credible to perform such a task.

But there is another problem.  Does a thing begin to exist once it has reached its intended form?  We were born as babes, but surely the clear intent in nature is for ourselves to grow to maturity.  But in order to grow into maturity, we had to have existed the entire time.  So when does existence begin?  Did it begin at our conception?  Did our existence begin with the creation of the molecules that would eventually be used for our DNA in indescribable precision?  Did we begin with the beginning of our parents in that way?  And in our earlier imaginary universe, does that then mean that we really did begin with the beginning of all things?

So does existence only come once an entity is formed and actualized, does the entity’s beginning of existence occur when the essence for the entity is first present?

Take this for example.  On your imaginary solitary planet in the solitary universe, you may discover how to build a sand castle on the beach.  Now, the sand for the castle was already there in all of its physical splendor. Indeed, the water from the ocean or lake was already there as well.  But what of the castle?  No, you had to build that.  But did the castle in a sense already exist simply because the essential building blocks of its construction were already present (namely the water and the sand)?  What then should we believe?  Did the sand castle already begin in essentia before you formed it?

And also what about your thoughts on the sand castle?  Let us go further.  Suppose that you began to think about, ponder, and even design the methods of your sand castle even before you had started to build it.  Perhaps somehow during your unknown time span that you began to idealize and visualize yourself building that sand castle.  Could it then be said that your sand castle began once you started to ponder upon its structures, even before your very same mind had coerced your body’s capable physical appendages to perform the work?

Are there anything else that we can think of concerning your sand castle?

If you are truly of the inhibited mind, a true skeptic, then you will come to notice that these very same questions may be asked about your own existence within the cosmos.  Yes, and even more so now as you are aware of your mortal and fixated destiny called death…which is commonly referred to as the End.

But really is this “end” if it is all of the undoing of the beginning?  And since we begin to move toward the end, are we born quickly living or slowly dying?  Or perhaps we are born doing both in no particular rate of time at all (for who can predict tomorrow’s fate…or even the next moment’s?).  Different questions for a different time, I am afraid.

Yet still, we must ponder this.  Does the end only mean the loss of the gain that was involuntarily received at our beginning?  Surely we received our beginning without merit and also without our own involvement.  But so much has stemmed from that great involuntary reception, and it is surely the sum of all that we know, that we dread even the thought of losing such a gracious endowment: our beginning to exist.

And if the words and the concepts behind  “beginning” and “end” are antithetical toward one another, then surely we can call the “end” the great undoing of the beginning.

But we haven’t even gotten the beginning all sort out, have we?  And as far as we experientially know and live, our beginning is indeed our constant reference to the past…the past wherein before itself, according to our experience, there was not.

But still, we have not even gotten our beginning all sorted out.

Therein lies the crux of our inquiry.  If our knowledge cannot mean more than what is perceived, and our perception cannot pass beyond any more than what we have experienced, and our experience is directly limited by our ability to be, then what constitutes “to be”?  And what, therefore, constitutes our ability “to not be,” or in this case, “to un-be”?

We have reasoned that the beginning of our existence is limited by our perceptions of the past, and that even our experiencing of the present is likewise limited because our present is so closely tied to the passing moment.  But our perception of the past is itself limited by a number of factors forming a sufficient quandary that needs to be investigated if we are to discover what lies at our End.

We have seen in our imaginary universe that without a guide outside of ourselves to determine the relatability of our existence to the cosmological time frame, we are unable to determine our own inception from the inception of existence itself…and most assuredly it is difficult to do so concerning our existence in relation to other particular things within the universe.

We may judge time by our memory, but our memories fail and are shattered easily by the doubting of fact and the flood of imagination.

Furthermore, in order for anything to be housed within our memory, that would require not just our mere existence but our comprehensive sentience to experience that said phenomenon, and also our ability to have the psychological fortitude of resilience to retain such a memory in accurate fashion.  Surely our existence did not coincide with our own developing maturity to becoming sentient and to retain accurate accounts of our experiences.  Existence simply is with or without our perceptibility to receive it.  Remember the open garage.

One does not say, unless one is involved in some cruel medical practice involving the developing human child, that development determines existence…just as development itself does not indeed determine one’s viability.

But our conversation on that is for another time.

Fine then.  We have found that even our assumptions of life cycles necessitate a foreknowledge of the thing that we are attempting to discover, namely how a thing began in order to determine how it is that it came to be.   We cannot assume that the field of dandelions in our imagined universe is evidence of a history before our own unless we are first certain that all dandelions even from their existential beginning came from dandelion seeds.  The chicken first or the egg dilemma.

But our assumptions also require our sentience to be able to perceive from before our own beginning, or at least, the thing that we are considering.  We need to be able to perceive the beginning of all dandelions in some way in order to draw an empirical conclusion about such an event.  Easily one who was there could tell us, but in our imaginary universe such a person will never come.  And even now in reality, to wait for such a person would require a great amount of rational expectation for the event to occur…and, as mentioned before, all claimants who claim to have received such an event involve the esoteric, the mysterious, and the religious.

We could therefore take a leap into assumption (and to do so now could be argued to be a form of inquisitive surrender) and merely assume that all is because all always was.  But then how are we to know even that?  Such an act would be the suicide of both skepticism and inquiry.

We even questioned before whether a thing had to be formed in order to exist when it can exist in essentia (in essence) but without form.  We have said this concerning the sand castle, which, while still being only an idea in your mind, could be said to already exist just as the sand and water that you use to make it with already exist.  At least in your thought’s mental picture the castle already exists (we are ignoring any consideration that your exact idea of the castle may not turn out to be the sand castle that you build).

But for existence in essence to be, that requires cognition, and it is a cognition worthy of a prior sentience and of a prior designer.

What then could possibly be the total ground of being, the place of ultimate existence and sustenance?  Eventually all of these things must meet at whatever sacred location the ground of being is found.  The Designer, the Waymaker, the Architect, the Mind, the place of disembodied and primordial conception that leads to the initial event of the Realm of Existence breaking upon the Plains of Nonexistence…from whence does the ground of being come…and is one even required?

I am sure that by now you can see that the ground of being assuredly is required.

Ah, but see, here comes the atheistic mind or the proposed “agnostic,” athelists as I call them.  They presume to not be bothered in the least or in the slightest concerning these questions.  Nay, they propose misdirected answers to quell all others’ minds.

You see, the atheist merely states that all is naught and therefore all ought not to matter (nihilism), or when confronted with the extreme moral and aesthetic/esoteric dilemmas of such a conclusion, the atheist merely shrugs and says “we do not know what is but there is no evidence to claim that it ever began” (utilitarianism or materialism), so as to not fall into the same conundrum that we are in right this moment– because ultimately it is a conundrum of consequences beyond his control.

But why then does the atheist make a claim to what the existential beginning is not?  Is the atheist merely taking the coward’s way by substituting the rigorous and risky matter of finding out what is by merely resorting to saying what isn’t?  And where does he come off with such knowledge?

How many times have we heard the zealous atheist insert this fallacious statement: “But the burden of proof is on you.”?  We should chuckle because such atheists only project upon inquisitive skeptics like ourselves the basic question that would destroy all of his own presumptions.

And what of this “lack of evidence” that so many atheist go on about?  Does this “lack” truly factor into our progress/knowledge right now?  What of the sand castle?  What of the dandelions in the fields?  What of our own being, our very nature of existence upon this existential plane?  Have we been fooling around with our thoughts– thoughts that even lacked the material that sure thoughts are made of?  In such ways does the atheist deride our thinking– and all in the name of “skepticism.”  The atheist shrugs and says that we do not know, but then proceeds to makes statements upon this matter as if he does know, or he at least has the foreknowledge that all the rest of us together lack.  Somehow he is able to get closer to the precipice of unveiled mystery through his immense knowledge of what he says is not, and yet he is the true “skeptic.”

The atheist believes himself arriving closer to the truth than the rest of us are capable of doing by our experiential learning…the learning that we all perform daily by leaning upon the dependability of true logic, sound reason, appropriate science, and the evidential trust needed once our knowledge is at an end and must lead to reasonable action, be it creed or deed, even as our limited knowledge is not exhaustive.  And yet the atheist claims to be the true “empiricist.”  By holding a view that all are wrong simply by the nature of their belief, while holding to a worldview that cannot even begin to compensate nor explain the basis for logical discourse, the atheist holds himself not only higher than all others but also higher than the sovereign methods of Reason…all while advocating for “skepticism.”   The atheist can never tell you why you should trust his reasoning, or even your own, without resorting to some pro-theistic banter or some appeal to the ground of being that we are just now deducing through our skeptical inquiry must indeed exist.

Logic, reason, science, and trust all find their bases in the essence of that underlying, all-encompassing, and overshadowing, transcendent orderer often described in foggy terms as the Logos…the grounding of all that sustains the consistent reality of the world.

And the atheist presupposes himself above all of it.

But even more stunningly unbelievable than the atheist is the agnostic.  The agnostic is certainly doomed to oscillate from being the apathetic to being the complete imbecile.  The agnostic must only either not have an opinion on the matter or simply not care enough to formulate one.  And my, isn’t this the convenient cop-out of all matters in reality when driven to its fullest and ultimate form?  And she too, along with the atheist, earns the title of athelist.

What matters worse is that the athelists project themselves as the arbiters and wardens of skepticism and the Socratic method.  Yet it is they, and only they, who charge at those who ponder these mysteries in humble consideration with ad hominem blasts of superiority…all the while holding to themselves the right to declare the definitive boundaries and answers for the mysteries of life…the agnostic whilst not knowing anything and the atheist whilst “knowing enough” about everything.

So I call both groups together the athelists: the Greek prefix “a-” meaning “not,” and the Greek word “thelo” meaning “will, desire, design.”  The athelists do not will nor do they desire to find an answer, most definitely not a real one, for such a thing is too inconvenient for them, masters of their own cosmos that they are.  For indeed, no one goes on searching for an answer if one creates their own answer key…and no servant searches for a king if he fashions for himself a crown.

There comes a time when skepticism must meet inquiry, and that inquiry is most true when it is most free to inquire.

So then, returning to our dilemma, we have: limited knowledge (epistemology), limited and unreliable memory, limited perception of how things become, limited expertise in the essence of existence, limited references in time, limited knowledge of our own permanence or the permanence of other things, limited abilities to reason, and, last but most, limitations in our own limitations to expand outside of them into the realms unknown and unattainable.

We would do no better approximating to the truth in making up our answers to the puzzle– by contriving for ourselves some deity or ontological cause of our own fancy– for we would find ourselves in no better position than the athelists whose preposterous positions end all quests of inquiry for all things at their basest levels.  Therein do the believers in reincarnation and the athelistdwell, and it is best to not sojourn in their territory.

Do we then give up our impossible quest?  No, but, we do have the ability to consider the “end” just as much as we have the beginning, and we move to that final goal now.

If the end is the great “un-doer,” then we may be comforted in knowing that loss along the way is inevitable…the loss of whatever keeps us as being…and whatever keeps all other things as beings.  That is at least one definitely sure answer to our inquiry.

Now, we know that merely imagining a thing does not make it so, and by “so” we mean “to exist,” else our mistaken memory of closing our garage door would act as a supernatural rectifier in the thread of existence.  When we returned home, the garage door would be open whether we really performed that duty in the time past or not.  And we also should be plummeting toward a whimsical fantasy land full of the unspeakable horrors that only the human mind can conjure and imagine.  And just think, if ants too have imaginations, then all the world would possibly become more horrifying than the most creative of perverted human machinations.   Thankfully imagination is imagination, and reality is reality.  Existence comes from a Higher Power than our individual/collective desires.

But maybe there can be said that the End also involves the cessation of the ability to imagine a thing…since even in conceptual imagination there is always the possibility of a thing being formed again…and the End must be the complete opposite of the beginning, which itself began upon possibility of existence.

Surely the end does in some sense of the term mean “the end of form.”  We say and use such a definition all of the time.  Our lunch meal’s time on Earth ended around 12:30 pm today when we ate it– but only its form ended.  We should hope by the purposes of survival and biochemistry that the essence of our meals is still present within our body systems being digested so that we may benefit from its consumption and live on.  The same may be said of the End whenever and wherever it finally comes “to be.”

But what about the essence underlying the form?  Ah, if we have done away even with the imagination of a thing simply because of the possibility of the thing being formed to exist anew, should we then be consistent and rid ourselves of even the essence of the thing as well?  Surely that too must be abrogated in the End since it is totally antithetical to the “beginning.”  The End must also mean “the end of essence.”

Now, what we are saying closer and closer approximates the fears of “death”….a fear of what lies ahead of all things transient and temporal.  This is what the Ancient Greeks conceptualized into the power of their great titan Kronos (Chronos), the titanic embodiment of time itself who devours and consumes all things.  All things rot and decay, and to the Ancient Greeks they even seemed to have lost their very essence of existence, vanishing away finally and permanently into nothing at all.  Even their memory eventually dies with them.  Such is ancient pagan thought, but by our modern minds we have met the same conclusion.  Surely, we are our parent’s children…and in the truth and in lies a certain amount of truth is shared.

So then, in our reasoning of the nature of the end, we very well can postulate that the ultimate and surest form of the “end” constitutes the loss of essence and perceptual reality (that which constitutes imagination…and perhaps in addition memory).

Yes, the loss of memory also must be added to the mix.  For if we still have the memory of a thing, can we not then draw from such a well the power to imagine it once again, and hence grant unto it renewed existence in our perception?  And with the imagination, is it not then possible to draw such a thing forth always, whether or not we ever grow to have the capabilities to create it?  And do we then never shed ourselves from becoming like it, or are we never free from the consequences of its ever having been?

So then, memory must be shed too in this final “death.”  Death is loss.  And no other event known to mankind comes closest to defining the End than death itself.

The End must then also by default constitute an end of form, of perception, of essence, and of memory if it is to be a total end…an end to being.  An end to being must be removed even from the very ground of being itself, whatever that ground is and however it may be found…if it is to be found at all by those wholly dependent in all ways upon its existence.

What then is the End, what then is true, full death other than total and complete separation from that ground of being?

And what should happen to ourselves if we are to fall into it?

Well then, if our very beginning is all that we see in our past, and to our own experience it is eternal…then should we think any differently concerning our end?

Put another way, since we in reality do have access to our history in our universe and do not live in some nightmare where the past is forgotten by mankind, as it was in The Giver with unfortunate social consequences, should we rather especially consider that our end will be eternal because we are so dependent upon experiences in our present outside of ourselves to detail to us about a time before our beginning?  Remember the imaginary universe from before.  Without the history lessons, all eternity past was hinged upon our ability to draw upon our experiences from the personal past.  I doubt that we should expect to be getting “future lessons/lessons of the future” when we cease to be altogether in the ultimate ending.  Nobody would be in the classroom.

What we can expect then is to be caught forever in the bend of the passing present that never yields for ourselves a coming future…for we will not ever arrive in that coming future to be able to perceive it (or even its coming, to be honest).

But along come the athelists, so brave are they with their newest claim:  Ah…but we still exist in essence, though not in form, because matter (they quote from the experts of limited knowledge) cannot ever be destroyed.

To them I merely say, “Since your science is built around the experiential, and therefore the empirical, let then those who hold such a dogma prove beyond doubt that matter cannot be destroyed ever.”  We should all laugh, for then we shall see firsthand the limitations of our humanity and the dupability of the athelists themselves…for the limitations in the capabilities of mortal man say nothing about the limitations of reality that the ground of being upholds.

We cannot hope to create an alternate reality.  That does not mean that there is no proof, then, of any reality existing.  And this is exactly applicable to the discussion at hand.  

The athelist is at an utter loss.

If even the very cosmos is held up by existence, by the ground of being, then any appeals to the nature contained within the cosmos cannot stand higher than they possibly can should the very ground of existence be removed from the cosmos.  For then the cosmos would come to naught and cease to be, and along with it the athelists’ precious “Mother Nature” and the matter that they assure us “cannot be destroyed.”  All things will come crashing down into naught, save the ground of being.

In fact, show me an athelist who would make such a boisterous (and yet hope-filled) claim, and I will show you a man, woman, boy, or girl who very much dreads the very same thing that we (and the believer in reincarnation) all do but who merely (as I have expressed before) takes the coward’s or expedient way out of our common conundrum.  If death is final and the ultimate end, why then make jests at the esoteric, the religious, and the mystical…but then scratch one’s own way out of the finality of the end with equally limited knowledge and a clension to some uncertain and existential lore-serving dogma?

It is here that C.S. Lewis and David Hume both meet, and for good reason.

Such athelist foolishness is a wonder to be taught in our education facilities as the highest and noblest level of human thought and reason.

But returning to the subject at hand, to part from the ground of being must mean to parted from existence in utter totality of whatever could be meant by the expression as far as the limited human mind can reason– and perhaps even beyond that.

But who is to say that the ground is an “it?”  All of the terms that we have ascertained must be true concerning this ground of being have been personalized terms requiring appropriate sentient perceptibility: the Designer, the Waymaker, the Architect, the Mind.  Our universe doesn’t simply exist; it works and functions as a complex machine.  Indeed even our own minds depend upon the undergirding Logos to be able to embark upon our journey so far.  Strangely, we may be tempted again to take the coward’s way out and attribute these things to some Freudian aspect of the human collective psyche to anthropomorphize a condition or some advanced concept of the sort…but are we really willing to risk all of this energy just to throw it away?  Why should we give so much power over our reasoning capabilities to a man named Sigmund Freud anyway…what did he use to give us our diagnosis?

It can never be truer said that a sex addict made so many men and women utterly afraid and unsettled by their own dreams and thoughts, when such fears would have been better spent upon himself, than it can be said of Sigmund Freud.

Minds can only come to be when mind is involved, my friends.

It takes even human intelligence to plan and to construct the artificial.

But this Ground of Being (intellectual and ingenuitive as he, she, or whoever must be by virtue of the Logos that stands beside and even as one with it) by being the very Ground of Being in essentia, does that mean for his/herself an existence based from within and not from without?  And since all of our knowledge relies upon our ability to concieve, has this Ground of Being revealed his/her self unto us in sufficient manner in order for us to know or come to know his/her nature and form?

And if our end, should it ever come, or the end of anything having presence in existence* (*that which Aristotle identified as “a being”) be eternal…then who will tell us and how will we know if we ourselves are no longer?

For who can tell us when our ending is ended?  (As I mentioned before, if we end then we are students, but the teacher who will be giving the “future lessons” will find that she presides over an empty classroom.)  Who may tell us, once we have been removed completely from the ground of all being, that our being has been removed?  Will we not perceive it?  I ask this facetiously, for surely we will not perceive it…our final ending.  There will not be an “ourselves” to perceive anything once we have been removed and our ending is made complete.  Even more, there will not be added memories of our own, nor even memories that we can truly call memories for surely they shall all pass away with us.  And with such an eternal end to our perception, we must leave our existence with only the final perception that we will have received even as we end– much as it was a continual drawback upon our first perception when we began which we continually drew back upon in the first moment that we were able to perceive our beginning in reference to eternity past.  But the difference is, while in the past we did have older and noblee teachers to tell us of the time beforr us…in the future, the classrooms are forever empty.  Whatever the state of existence within which we entered into that fray of unbeing, from thence we shall forever “be”…even as we cease to be.  And we shall never know of its ending even as we ourselves come to an end because we will never reach that end by our perception.  The dead pass, and they know nothing…and even so…they know nothing more.

That, therefore, is the nature of the End.

At the last moment of existence, of our last experience, in our last memory, of the final event…that will be our eternal encounter with existence even as we pass from the reality of existence.  And none will be able to salvage for us a perception afterwards in order to yield to us the end of that final time.  Oh pray that that our parting not be painful!

And it may seem, to a very great many then, that we have stumbled upon something very akin to the ultimate horror.   To end up upon the wastebin of all existence and to be consumed destructively, utterly, and entirely in form, essence, and perception of being is our end.  To be unconceived as if we never were…indeed to be a “never-were” to the outside existing world, assuming that there still will be one, is our final fate within the end…that is the eternal and everlasting consequence of the End.  For only the Ground of Being will remain as the ultimate reality even after all of the cosmos is lost.

That is the End’s nature.

And to never know that we are no longer known…unless we die forever with some glimpse that such a curse will have been our eternal fate, some glimpse given within some chronological moment between the blip in the last moment when our passing present gives way to the never-arriving future…to never know our “never-were” status, is our sealed fate in time– and even when time itself comes to a close, should it ever be so.  Oh, that we never be told the consequential verdict of our End beforehand!  Oh that it not be a painful parting!

The ultimate horror lies in the nature of our End, we all share its certainty and with it its logical conception.  And in some accounts contrived by the most solemn of human minds, but perhaps testified by the noblest and truest among all of them…such a horror is a fate even worse than the death that we may be fearing even now.

For at least that has an end.

[Updated on February 16, 2017 in order to better reflect the author’s original inquiry in this endeavor.]


One thought on “The Nature of the End

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s