FORQUE:

There are two paths: the right-hand and the left-hand path. Those who adhere to the right-hand path insist that their own path is the proper one. Those who adhere to the left-hand path insist that the members of the right-hand path are trying to trick you by making this claim. Yet there is nothing along the left-hand path which forbids trickery explicitly; it only warns, fairly dimly, of its consequences to the Self. The left-hand path prioritizes Self over Other; the right-hand path prioritizes Other over Self. Given the altruism of the right-hand path, honesty is far more intrinsic to the claims of the right-hand path than it is to the claims of the left-hand path. If one prioritizes the needs of Others and one holds a Truth to be valuable, one feels a sense of debt to represent this Truth to Others insofar as it might have value for them. Yet this is not an obligation which the left-hand path is heir to. The left-hand path prioritizes Self over Other, so there is nothing intrinsic to its principles which would forbid the suppression and even the misrepresentation of a Truth. Hence the left-hand path veers towards Secrecy and Deception. When adherents to the left-hand path accuse adherents to the right-hand path of trickery, they accuse the latter party of secretly belonging to the left-hand path. Thus, by avenue of a deception which only the left-hand path regards as permissible, adherents to the left-hand path covertly indicate that their own path is superior, implying that in fact both paths are the left-hand path. While adherents to the left-hand path might easily ascribe such trickery to adherents of the right-hand path, the fact remains that this is not a faithful rendering of the Truth. Since both paths clearly imply their own superiority, it is in fact the left-hand path which obscures the Truth, for it claims that both paths are equal. This pretense to equality hides an aggression which the right-hand path expresses outwardly, and since the two paths are only truly equal in this aggression, unless the left-hand path is surpassing in this regard, it is the right-hand path which is truly egalitarian in expressing this aggression openly, whereas the left-hand path creates a double-standard by the submersion of Truth. The dogmatism of both paths is exposed in how its adherents impose responsibility upon victims. Adherents to the right-hand path imply that bad fortune befalls those who deviate from dictates. Yet adherents to the left-hand path imply that bad fortune befalls those with weak wills. Neither path, upon this stratum of observation, truly holds aggressors responsible for the well-being and misfortune of their fellows. Doing what one wills, without any prescribed imperative, seeks to preserve its dignity by professing harmlessness, yet in fact there are no provisions, under Service to the Self, according to which harm might be prevented, since the perception of harm to one’s Self might be regarded as an expression of Self in its unactualized, unwilful state. By contrast, the right-hand path at least offers protection from harm by the imposition of mandatory dictates. Its conformism on one level produces freedom on another level, predicated upon the recognition that not all obstacles are internal, so not all fault can be found within the Self, and neither is all dignity actualized by it.

[({Dm.A.a.)}]