guff

A Conversation With Orley (The New Philosophy)

O: “I have a gift for you Kaf.”

K: “What? It’s — it’s not my birthday or anything.”

O: “No, and it isn’t a birthday kind of gift.”

K: “Well thanks, Orley. That’s real nice. I don’t think you’ve ever given me anything before.”

O: “No? Well, now I can say I have.”

K: “What is it?”

O: “It’s a gift I give out of a deep appreciation. For the gift, that is. It’s a thing everyone will someday have given to them, and I’m honored to be the first to give it. That it’s you is a very small part of my interest in the act.”

K: “…And the gift is?”

O: “I’ve got you anticipating, don’t I? That’s good, because it’s a gift that stands at a caliber demanding anticipation. One might even say…”

K: “Orley!”

O: “It’s a philosophy. That is, it’s the beginnings of one. And it’s yours. I give it to you.”

K: “Really?”

O: “Yes.”

K: “Really.”

O: “It’s quite true. No need to thank me, though you may.”

K: “Orley, I’m not sure where to begin.”

O: “You’re overcome. I expected that.”

K: “I’m definitely over something, but not what you think.”

O: “Now I get the feeling you don’t want it.”

K: “I wouldn’t… No, never mind. What’s the name of this philosophy you’re giving me?”

O: “Well you see Kaf, it’s not exactly a philosophy I can name for you.”

K: “Say again?”

O: “It doesn’t have a name. It does exist, but it’s not narrowly defined by some academic label.”

K: “Ah. And how exactly do I come to know this philosophy if I don’t have a name for it?”

O: “That’s an overly pedantic stance for someone like you to take, Kaf.”

K: “Maybe.”

O: “No need to be defensive. Let me explain: it’s an open-ended philosophy, designed to allow for growth and change, and even it’s own removal and replacement if need be. I realized one of the ongoing problems with any mode of intellectual inquiry and discourse is they’re all narrowly defined to fulfill certain tenets. They build in rules and posit moral and other kinds of strictures based on some doctrine. Why, even refusing a moral code is a form of defining oneself. I wanted a philosophy that could avoid being cubby holed.”

K: “Orley, this is sounding less like a philosophy and more like a lack of one.”

O: “No, it is a philosophy. You know Plato’s version of Socrates’ name for a true absence? The ‘unexamined life’. I can’t say if such a life truly isn’t worth living, as it’s a serious lock-in my new philosophy steps around entirely.”

K: “Look Orley, I’m not sure what the point of this is?”

O: “It’s to give you something that fulfills a promise all great philosophies throughout the ages have claimed for themselves but failed to provide.”

K: “And that is?”

O: “To know the underlying principles of the universe, of course.”

K: “Of course. And your philosophy does this thing all others have previously failed at.”

O: “Yes.”

K: “How?”

O: “By transparency.”

K: “Transparency. Orley, you do know what that word means, right? Your philosophy is see-through.”

O: “Funny, Kaf. What I mean by transparency is a lack of purposeful or accidental obfuscation.”

K: “Right.”

O: “To tie oneself into a particular method of thought is to chance looking past the real truths, because they might not fit into the boxed categories you’ve set up for them.”

K: “Right.”

O: “That’s why I say it works by transparency. Try to think of it as a window, in that it’s there only to let you see out of it. Or in through it. But remember, it’s not a window.”

K: “Right. Well, I must say Orley, this is the biggest gift load anyone has ever dumped on me.”

O: “Yes?”

K: “For sure. But I hope you don’t mind when I fail to thank you properly.”

O: “Not at all. It’s pretty much the way my philosophy is supposed to work.”