about

i do not, and hopefully never will, claim to know the truth. in fact, i claim the opposite.

this project

i have an innate need to express the thoughts in my head.

oftentimes i end upon conclusions that, in oral speech, am unable to express in a way that i find satisfactory. also, due to the nature of dialogue, i.e. not a monologue, there is the propensity to diffuse the idea during a conversation; the need for a clarification of a definition might arise, or the disagreement for the use of a word which was picked for spurred rather than accuracy, etc, and in general there is no adequate space to fully expore a single idea in this process, as dialogue often is conductive to discussing and presenting a theme rather than a single subject contained within such a theme.

a friend pointed out that such an endeavour must be made in caution, i could, willingly or unwillingly, engage in this out of a feel of superiority, or rather a saviour complex of sorts. i do not feel like such is the case, it is however a possibility, people lie to themselves constantly and making a public statement carries the idea of believing that you are right. nevertheless i feel like this is more of an outlet for my brain that exists publicly in the same sense that music or poetry exist publicly, not from a need to be correct, but from a need of self expression.

‘keímena’ is therefore a project of self expression; or rather a showcase of my limited capability to understand the world.

language

every person speaks and understands their own version of any language(s) (or communication system for that matter) they may know, and this creates a gap between author and reader.

since this a public project, i.e. an express of opinion in a public forum, the above mean that if i use language with which i am more comfortable, but is more open to interpretation, i allow myself and my work to be misrepresented, to be misjudged and to be misunderstood. i do realise this will most probably happen anyway, but the attempt is to decrease the effect, rather than stop it.

i, the person

the axiomatic system of faith that i choose to believe in is the dogma of the orthodox catholic church, as it was established in the first ecumenical council of nicaea.

this for most people who know me personally oftentimes comes as a surprise, especially to those that know me from a young age, during which i was an atheist; i rejected the axiomatic system i currently believe in, and i followed the system of “pure scientific truth”, ignoring the gaps and weaknesses it presents.

the first cracks in my absolute devotion to science occurred during my first years in university, when i came into contact with friends which i will forever hold dear to my heart, as well as with various psychedelic substances, both of which caused me to reevaluate the relationship between faith and science. these substances (more on those in an upcoming corpus of text), created inside me a disruption on the idea of absoluteness of reality and of the nature of truth, and suggested to start from the beginning.

through the above, i became exposed to new ideas, new means by which humans have interpreted nature throughout the millenia of human experience, and for years i delved into the different religions of humanity, as well as the philosophical ideas that rise from them.

these journeys, mental and physical, led me to many questions which no religion, philosophy, or axiomatic system could answer, except for the one i believe in now.

the fact that the god is, rather than not, and specifically as he is described in the orthodox dogma, is a necessity for the system of reality, as i see it and understand it, to be self-consistent. not only does it close the gaps that are left open by other axiomatic systems, but also eclipses and explains why these other systems occur.

assuming someone knows, or is near to, the truth, and modifies it, by removing sections, or by adding new ones, then they are able to create every “truthfull” system we have discovered as humans. as a result of these modifications though, it is impossible to trace back the original truth, without the truth itself, and the modifications and the modifiers become lost in history.

after all, the best lie is that which as much as possible contains the truth, except for a single point, a detail that nobody can recognize as false, without first knowing the fullness of truth.