MY TALK WITH KRISHNA: A Play Onwards.

By Peter Kaleb Theodoropoulos AKA Rockwell

Wilder.

STORY copyright 2009 image copyright 2016. It is one of the first Friction works ever created. It's got
gaps in the reasoning and unquestioned questions that result in gaps in the rationales used, but that's
just a feature of me being likely new to the art. I spent over 1100 days in total developing the art form
often working 10-16 hours a day between 2009-2012. My days comprised of spontaneous rhyme,
spontaneous characterization, adapting writers, in spoken word, pretending to be my heroes and
influences...and entering into discussion between all of them to see what they think of my ideas,
concepts and ideas, and sometimes I do philosophical investigations with them in what is truly a sort of
method acting, sometimes I speak it out sometimes I think in in unique voice (Mark Twain was one of
my favourite, as was Lao Tzu)...it's a development of the mind via a social and political instinct to
extract scrutinized content, from one's own thinking by interrupting or creating friction with one's
persona and environment, you literally become something LIKE the character, but there is always an
epistemic gap, this is not borderline personality disorder or Dissociative disorder play, but it does
involve dissociation working spontaneously in one's characteristics mannerisms and gestures- Marty is
one of my favourite characters he eventually turns out to be a time traveling mobster, whose death is
just a new beginning in a parallel dimension where he relives something of the mobster persona in
different stories, as different characters but he's essentially the same- a friction character doing
ontological friction-FUN AS HECK!). Just as Plato used Socrates in his plays, so too I use my
impression of my influences to enter into discourse about life. It was the most liberating art I ever
experienced. Next to Pulse poetry Zenetics and Boom Poetics, which you may see an example of on
this cosmofunnel account https://cosmofunnel.com/user/63652 I had the good pleasure and privilege of
launching some of the Millenniums most nuanced and unique art forms.
I initially thought of this as a discourse that might make a play.
It's based on tangible discussions with God in the form of the Hindu deity Krishna. My objective was to
take on the aura of speaking to God in another tradition, to make progress in the arena of actually
speaking to and through the imagination, TO the ineffable unified force of God. I spent time in prayer,
and meditating always expecting or hoping to hear God's voice, so I did a wonderfully creative thing, I
invented the content of a conversation between God and myself as I would imagine it occurring.

The conversation breaks off misses salient points of emphasis covers over areas of concern with
glazing inquiry, creating curiosity in the reader and some frustration too, for the unanswered questions,
there are aspects of the conversation which do not result in cohesive explanations, but rather competing
focal points, this is part of the element created by never practicing the character and just
extemporaneously trusting myself to speak with a sort of winging it wisdom...that is tantamount to an
amalgam of many new ages influences that have in embryo affected me over the years. FRICTION is
a sort of giving birth...(I call this work FRICTION), it involves never breaking character and took
approximately two hundred days of meditation to arrive at this point of writing My Talk With Krishna,
and one may argue the whole of my life. Written in my 40th year, it comprises an attempt to bring
philosophy to discourse, but is as much a weaving of non-sequiturs that have philosophical content by
way of their juxtaposition. Please take this time to enjoy the play on words, the spiritual progressions of
MY TALK WITH KRISHNA.
It begins....

Peter-Why has all this occurred? To understand a new purpose past the illusion of things?
Krishna-There are no purposes with illusion.
Krishna -Freedom is not understandable.
Krishna-Understanding is a form of restriction.
Peter- Yes but freedom as an experience is experienceable, hence integrative to understanding.
Krishna- Is it?
Peter- Yes, if I experience an option or series of options I feel freedom.
Krishna- You feel a sense of the world in the sense that it grants you a way in which to respond that is
customary to your practices, or range of methods apparent to your practices. This is not freedom but
constraint.
Peter-Then what is Freedom, Krishna?
Krishna- Freedom is the articulation of the will of everything.

Peter- but by your earlier definition wouldn't that merely exist as an amalgam of all those minute
restrictions and hence can freedom plural and total, merely be a collection of all the sum of these
smaller and more minute amalgams of freedom, which by definition are not free but restricted?
Krishna- In the subjective sense, they are free, in the objective sense constituted, and in the neutral bind
between the two are able to be liberated into grander abstractions.
Peter- is there a bind between these scalically speaking, that is to say such that these abstractions attain
to a limit, so as to qualify their interelations as reaching a maximum of freedom.
Krishna- Freedom is absolute.
Peter- But you can feel more free, certainly there are a range of freedoms that define a person's
experience and are part of what they are on one level.
Krishna- Not in the sense that freedom is subjective, in a seemingly objective sense you can see that
there is the impression that there are more options within a range of behaviours that constitutes a range
of effects which appear to be indicative of an outpouring of local effects. These effects however may be
from absolutely anywhere within the whole of the system.
P-What do you mean not in the sense that freedom is subjective, and that certain effects may be from
absolutely anywhere within the whole of the system.
K-The subjective is composed of the collection of objective relations, these objective interelations
create a total harmony of emergent possibilities that are not necessarily local to a region, but can be
ripplecast through transfer systems into a manifest property.
P-I always thought that the objective was the collection of the subjective.
K-Why do you think this.
P-Because I am a subject.
K-But are you aware of your being a subject?
P-Yes,

K-Then you are akin to an object of attention, are you not?

P-Yes,
K-And can the object of attention be otherwise?
P-Yes,
K-Hence you akin to a free object,
K-And can your attention about the object be otherwise?
P-Yes,
K-Hence you are akin to a freedom of the attenuation of possibilities, but would you think yourself to
be simply possibilities, or the enactment and living of possibilities.
P-why the living of possibilities of course.
K-Yes, hence you are objective.
K-Only life can be objective.
P-What about a detached and immaterial form of consciousness that is automatic?
K-Does it have a subject?
P-No.
K-Does it have an object of attention?
P-Yes,

K-Does it have awareness of that object as a relation that could be otherwise?

P-I suppose it could, if it were programmed to be so,
K-Well who would program it, would it not be a sentient or aware being?
P-Maybe just another automatic accident???
K-Well then both can be said to be simulation of correspondence in agreement with complexity, but
neither subject or object, and the mere randomness of freedom, but not an absolute form of freedom
and hence an unqualified version of freedom, be it as it may that freedom is the nature of some relation
to be otherwise, and if they are automatic programs they cannot be otherwise.
P-Couldn't they be given life?
K-They could, but life comes from life.
P-Then where was the first life?
K-In absolute freedom itself.
P-Is this God?
K-This is what God does.
P-Can God Die? Since God would be absolutely free, God would be absolutely free to be otherwise.
K-Yes, God can die, but not absolutely. For to absolutely limit an absolute freedom merely nullifies a
principle, giving rise to a new manifest principle causally. Since the manifest principle is likewise
caused, one must ask how and by what forces it is that something caused manages to be something
transferred and transformed. Since God is the root of the transfer and the cause of the transformation
even of principles, it may be said that the illusion exists that some form or impression of a tradition
fades, but the divine itself is not affected. This is the distinction between the subjective and the
objective. You begin your assertions with the assumption that it's the subjective that composes and
comprises the manner of what is, whereas it is the objective communality of change apparent only to
the absolute manifestation of freedom comprised of and with all that there is.

P-Yes but for what purpose is it that this "all that there is" occurs.
K-This occurs because the system of what becomes needs what could be in order to justify and
compare its assertions and beliefs, else it cannot say for sure that it is what it appears to be in spite of
all other possibilities and illusory appearances.
P-But we certainly can't be aware of all other possibilities, and appearances are filtered by the body's
proclivities.
K-Yes, however your body is always aware of all other possibilities, whereas your mind is not.
P-Wait, but that would mean that the body is superior to the mind!
K-The body WITH the mind is superior to the Mind alone.
P-Why is this?
K-Because it is through that connection that a body can have an attentional object AS object other than
its own material manifestation, and a mind can have a mindset other than its own material dispositions.
P-What is loss, is loss a feature of attachment?
K-No, it is not, Loss is the automation of the object in forms of alignment in consciousness that span
phases of unity.
P-So you mean loss doesn't need an object of attachment to be loss.
K-No it does not.
P-But what is it that makes a person feel loss?
K-This is the impression that without something else which is not readily attainable the present state is
unavoidable and unpleasant.
P-So you mean loss is an accident of thought, or of the situation.

K-It's a malappropriation of impressions about consequences.

P-Who designs these impressions.
K-This is always the work of the future ones, future aspects of the self.
P-What do you mean the future ones precisely, please elaborate?
K-Those who form a collective consciousness and who are comprised of a promise and expectation
which affects our present belief, and are in a sense one with our bodily and mentative environs, in ways
that generate gradual psychological continuity.
P-What is the role of the past in loss.
K-All forms of the Past are loss, hence it leads to a circular logical implications to put it in these
contexts.
P-What is the form of the present.
K-The present is the form of holding onto or releasing that which is to some a set of relations obtain a
dynamic stasis between what is and what may be.
P-And what force decides this dynamic?
K-Why of course pure and absolute freedom to understand the pragmatic liberties of this relation to
ALL forms of life.
P-But that sounds so IMPOSSIBLE Krishna.
K-It's impossibility too is merely a conventions of perceptions, but you are correct, these serve a
function to a relation with the possible and are as convention would have it, scrutinized in this manner,
else differences of opinion and mind might not be as they are.
P-BUT wait, you've made a distinction here of freedom of MIND, and freedom of BODY, which of
this, given the relation you've highlighted, is stronger and more valent?
K-In this sense MATERIALITY is weaker, because the body is constrained by the possible, but what is

possibly in the interests of others is not a category mutually exclusive of material relations, it's simply
not the agential aspect or region natural to the categories of relation that create and facilitate life. But
indeed the Mind and Body INTERCONNECTION gives the question and connectivity of mind and
body substance or cohesion.
P-Cohesion in what regard?
K-If you want something, the body demands a reaction, and in this response your mind is made aware
that it is bound to other phenomena and hence is free in relation to its free expression as constrained
and expressed by other relations. When all these relations are put into physical and psychological
contexts they are said to be together in some domain. However, if you just imagined something of
physical and psychological contexts it has primarily psychological cohesion and not psychological and
physical cohesion. MIND and body derive the second relation from the first pragmatic sets of manifest
principles that give the mind the feature of creating itself into sets of imaginable relations between the
physical and psychological and hence the first order, or that expression that is unmediated mind, is a
transient and transitory principle which is influenced by absolute freedom.
P-The mind AND body in other words Krishna give us what?
K-They give us a LIVING connection to what is, what could be, what may be, what may not yet be the
case, what mightn't be a relation, what in time may be a relation, and what in essence is a losing of
other sets of "being" and "becoming" which are together a part of the repertoire of manifestation.
K-God is always an exegesis, and not a language, the semantics of structure and not structure alone, to
make this mistake of thinking of God as structure would be to conflate God with Nature. What it means
to be rationally cohesive, awareness of a sort of cosmological logos, is not what it means to be
manifestly comprehensible by virtue of relations, but by way of manifest transitions of revelational
power, by way of whatever adaptive or evolutionary development in conscious awareness expresses
itself toward consciously aware abilities.
K-To a manifest plane of existence where the soul enters after Judgement...IF the soul is eternal than
what enters heaven, is it perfected individuation an identicality of infinite differences, with a purity of
perfect order now set to offset perception, into an ontomanifestation of pure and perfect actuality made
more perfect in some way. Being is perception, and the status of being involves conceptual and
psychological proprioception, of assertions of perfective balance between states of mind as increased
functional expressions as absorbed by union with divinity.
K-IN terms of becoming when we assume this it means that there is a Perfection of potential and
perfection of actuality, and that God is essentially extending that which is Perfect Potential to Perfect
Relation, via Perfectability to direct the conscious aware abilities of all that is to be in community with
a perfection of actuality, which exists and not in spite of God's Judgement or nature to affect with
PERFECT freedom and PERFECT responsibility, the sets of relations that grant a system its own
comprising sets of effective results in the realm of what comes to be of import to a set of emerging

spiritual relations.
P-Do we not have fantasies where we mandate a strategy against illusions, and how can we tell if our
version of Heaven or Divine Judgement is an illusion.
K-While other's say this is largely a question of faith, this is wrong. It's largely a mater of tradition, and
tradition a matter of experiment and revelation, and acceptance, and this a result of understanding
between God's freedom and human freedom to explore solutions beyond illusion.
P-What is it that gives us the power to transcend our limitations with respect to this problem.
K-To some it is predominantly intuition, for other's theories of magic, for others it is reason, for yet
others matters of celestial accident, for science a mere denial of the problem and ascertaining the
relations of spiritual perceptions to poor method based on immaterial evidence, to yet others the power
to transform options gives birth to a scrutiny of inquiry into what is certainly not the case by way of
what has up till this point been the case, living life in agnostic speculations, and to yet others it is
predominantly purely a sort of unquestioned revelation and little more.
P-What is it that guides us beyond the secular identification with the past illusions and ensnarements of
illusion and reintroduces it into our lives?
K-This is a good question. It would be poor to answer that illusion is reintroduced into our lives merely
out of individual inclinations, and our power to steer clear of illusory influences is always individual,
for this would give us no insight into the materiality of our secular connection to one another
historically, causally efficaciously and toward the material significance of our oppositions and
differences. This is in A sense Karma, but it is not. What it is, is the Mind's decision to choose one
means of allocating or identifying with what is insubstantial in an affective order of claiming that this
element of the past is either greatly or subtly of an emotional impact that still has some exhibited means
to guide behaviour. Illusions in other words, guide our behaviours, and in so doing have the power to
affect and guide our benefit and the benefits of others.
P-Since all things living eventually die, is success an illusion, what do we achieve if it all ends in
extinction?
K-All forms of succession exist, and all forms of qualifying this process and good for others is what we
mean by successful. Extinction is an illusory state, everything merely transforms and changes its state.
P-What if in evolution the inheriting of traits is good for the individual and not for others?
K-Then it's an illusion.

K-Success is something that depends on the good of one's own existence as a relation to other forms of
existence. It is an illusion to think that one form of existence is somehow not able to be put freely in the
context of relation to what is of benefit to others.
P-Yes but it appears as if there are paradigms guiding that subjective set of assertions.
K-Yes, but that subjectivity if concerned PRIMARILY for the benefit of success toward ONESELF
then the state of relations holding between the event of the person's existing relations, and the relations
of freely enactable other benefits present to the unfolding set of relations holding between what is the
case and what becomes the case, illustrates that the illusion of a person doing good only for oneself is
not only an impossibility, it's a complete illusion. Even the connection of our isolated contributions to
others and ourselves manages to unify into a benefit beyond the unfolding of time, and in a sense even
our illusions as collected and compared manage to grant a benefit to, for, and with all others.
P But certainly there are degrees of objective good that we can offer relative to less successful attempts
at organizing our shared benefit.
K- Yes but we know this only through the contrast of innate biases that construct our sense of right and
wrong, it is only by deferring our perception, that our being becomes one with it's innate potentials
expressed as skills distributed differently between members of a group in uniquely distinct manners and
ways. In the end it is the foundations between shared agreement to FREELY incorporate shared
advantages according to the specificity of roles, rules and reactions to sensible conditioning that
generates and individuates groups and individuals, and this freedom is a power to invent shared
realities for our shared eventualities such that our collective strivings and differences form our
destinies.
P-We procreate, it seems we want to make more of eternity.
K-Can you make more of eternity? It seems we want to be in contact with the Godstuff that makes us
interconnect. God in this sense is interconnection of essential characteristics and not just superficial
connection.
P-Are we in the mind of God. What if God is actually Material.
K-IF god were actually material, and what is in the mind is illusion, and we lived in some universal
condition where all that is material no matter if it changes form appears to be clearly apparent of all its
unfoldings and enfoldments such that the material is obvious to a standard relation to all that is clearly
and purely without deceptive nature. The essential relations of materiality in for example, a spoon
appearing to bend, which one knows to be an illusion is this in virtue of what light does through a
medium, through the material expression. IF in other words, the materiality of nature was self evidently
uncontradictory then could we say that this is of God's nature of REVELATION as a feature of God's
expression. This is not to say that God could not contradict God's manifest dimensions. God would
always have to be a cohesion of intentions fabricating a connection between the immaterial and

material realm. This is not perhaps what God is...but what God DOES as GOD...God's function, and as
I noted it's possible that if the material expression does not contradict innate truths of the significance
of the material constitution as an expression of material manifestation's connection to omnipotency,
omniscience, being all benevolent, as well as omnivalent in discerning goodness with a steadfast
consistency, based primarily in meaningful change, only insofar as inconsistency is not necessary, then
it's concievable that God could exist as a purely material being, with intrinsic and not transcendent
mind qualities. IF God was a comprising totality of material form, such as ALL of Nature with innate
possibilities to with immanent intentionally transform all of material existence at any time in the
material unfolding of material relations in accordance with innate inherent possibilities that just so
happen reflect the intrinsic qualities of God's will, GOD would be material, but this is a highly
constructed Universe we are proposing with innately different characterisitics than your own.
Krishna- It would also be difficult to reduce God's expression in any and all dimensions...Hence God is
BOTH within the Material dimension and within the Mentality of Mindness that is the agency of the
Mind with respect to mind's infinite expansion toward limitation even with relation to absolutes (IE
imagine the most infinitely large expression of infinity omitted only of the most infinitely small
expression of the infinitely finite) and with respect to the Material nature of things that gives what
God's expression with us, takes form within our minds, in a potential afterlife where we grow infinitely.
NOTE what an expression is, is not devoid of contradictions...IF we see a bent spoon, we see the
contradiction, but we don't conclude that God must by his nature be very deceptive, instead we say that
the material rules of the universe are bound to relations that allow for certain connections to exist
which are not at first apparent, and that a process exists which allows us to explain the relations that
pertain to how the mystery of appearance and actuality play a role in methods that are able to note the
connection between appearances and actuality, in some case and manifest examples that we are able to
see in natural phenomena. Belief is a social phenomenon, abridged and transcended by a personal
relation, it is a function of Culture.
Krishna- Culture is a kind of use. What's significant about this use is not so much HOW we use
something, in the sense that it's part of our ritual environ but that doing something is often made up of
sets of motivations, to direct a particular specific use and approach. When someone does something, it's
the amount that something is done, the intensity of focus with which it's done, the challenge
accompanying the achievement of what's done, the benefit or lack of benefit of what is achieved or not
achieved and the criticism that follows with it that tells us something about how culture is a kind of
USE, that speaks to the importance of the direction of our AGENCY. NOTE the distinction between
culture being a kind of ABUSE vs a kind of usefulness has to do with a conceptual relation between
what is the case and what is the case of certain relations at work in the mind's connection via soul and
BODY of SOUL connection, AND body. This means that there is SOUL and BODY of Soul. NOT the
MATERIAL body, not the spiritual body, the BODY of Soul, means what it's accumulant nature has as
an effect in the achievements of the mind, and proclivities of the body, based on the agency of this body
of soul; Its transitions of meanings met with ritual alignment of the body through the mind, or affirmed
through the emotional and cognitive forms of bodily awareness beyond mere proprioception. This
bodily awareness beyond sensory input works to guide agency to peace, completion, satiation with
process and method, and the fulfillment of purposes which compose the bond between the material and
immaterial, in ways that we must evaluate and test in order to qualify our beliefs and understandings. It
is only through this method we can be free, and dissolve our assumptions and assertions and establish
the bridge between our potentially resonant science of the spiritual, and our faith in overarching
pertaining material significance.
Peter- Thank you Krishna.

Krishna- You're most welcome.