A skip ahead to a page entitled "23rd July 2003"

Or, "The day I gave the ontology to the world"

The point of this passage is at heart that Being is Time and the truth about Being, the most universal and all encompassing elightening liberating insights most commonly called wisdom and thus the focus of Philosophy, must be expressed as the combination of both time and being:

The genius writes first that Being is Becoming, that what it was becomes what it is, which he follows by an inversion that may speak closer to the matter: what it is becomes what it was becomes what it is. But how can the past become the present in this way, one must ask. Perhaps the enquiry would lead to the conclusion that whatever it may be becomes (or will become or may become) what it is becomes what it was, but then couldn't it be said that whatever it was becomes what it is becomes (or may become) what it will be, or is this time in reverse, or does this exemplify the dynamic perpetual circular flux that is time.

He then writes that

being becomes being

and then without the elucidation of any steps moves to

becoming becomes:

I presume that if being were to incessantly become being there would be no room for any being at all but only for becoming, which he then takes to a further extreme by what would seem a simple description of the state of perpetual forward motion but which is actually a double affirmation of the state of being that always is/becoming,

for becoming becomes becoming,

showing that there is change in the state of things and also that things stay the same for becoming is still becoming although it becomes, something else necessarily new, at the same time. The actual state that is doing the changing from state to state which are themselves changing is itself changing:

the movement from one static moment to the next is a different movement from this moment to this moment than from this moment to this moment.

This discussion of the nature of time and being in the activity that combines the two and the play between the two, although here immaturely expressed, has left out the crucial component that is necessary for even an incomplete elucidation of the matter: nothing. If being becomes, making things static for a moment or two, does it become itself, for this is all we can see, or is it becoming nothing, the inevitable (unfortunate) aim or all things decaying, passing away, or is nothing still in the process of becoming being, an optimistic view believing that creation outweighs destruction.

But, as ancient religion has taught us (wisely, falsely or strangely), mustn't creation arise from something destroyed, rather than destruction pull down something previously created? Perhaps the point of this is not what it literally means but ironically that this must be destroyed for its opposite, the latter, to have been created. But then it is true and not true: a wonderful description of the paradox of creation, and in fact more importantly, an aspect of temporality:

things must neither pass away nor become but something between the two or both, for for something to have become something must have passed away, be it nothing or parts of the becoming that changes - or the belief that something must pass away before becoming! highlighting that this really is a question of belief without an answer which explains why I can't find a definitive one, and things cannot pass away before having become for obvious reasons.

Things both become and pass away at the same time and in no order: becoming, to take the best example among many, older, which is passing away. We may strengthen with age, becoming (optimistic) until we reach a level at which we would rather not age any more at which point we begin to decay (pessimistic) unto death:

but if as soon as we are we are old enough to die, we are, from the moment of conception, decaying: it is only our optimism and fear of decline that keeps us using becoming, which is associated with amelioration and embetterment.

I have jumped off on a tangent away from the passage in attempting to figure out the core of the issue by elaborating what the young genius has written. I have failed although I believe I have come up with something of note, while assuring myself that this question he has begun or attempted to complete is just one more belonging to the realm of the unanswerables. But we can try, no more, no less.

Some quotes from the page:

Being went silent
Elation completed
the charm of chaos
instantly forgotten
the world progressed
beyond the beyond
insanity made sane
Being becomes itself
in Impermanence

The transitions of recreation
This thought will self destruct.

Some Aphorisms from pgs 5 to 10 of the diary

Good at asking questions to myself, bad at asking questions to others

All life is encompassed within itself as life for life with life in life.

I don't explain. I summarize!

You must rephrase to yourself in order to understand

Perceive the duality of existence as One!

If you had more belief in life - although it is absurd - you would invest less of your attention in the moment.

You are not capable even of lazyness!

Deception is everything.
In times of war
the skin of a fox
Shall be my secret suit of armour.

One would have nothing be otherwise than it is: amor fati

Deny Yourself! The secret answer to the game: the other has nothing with which to reply.

In the beginning was the word, now the word is absurd.

What would x do? How would x handle this situation? Then compare to yourself and decide for you must.

Decision takes away your freedom, for you no longer have the choice of other possibilities.

An analysis of the young genius based on a few pages from the diary

The young genius, before going insane, believed himself to be a God: he believed his exegetical ability to exceed that of anyone ever: he believed he could surmise or anticipate what people were thinking about or saying everywhere in the world.
His sentences are broken leaving the reader puzzled about what would logically be the next sentence or the sentence that fits between two that is missing in the steps of an argument: I believe that he believed that whoever the reader may be, he would have or obtain from the writing the ability to do what he believed he could do, know what comes next or what must have come before.
I think he would always listen and act submissive in person while on the phone or in email he would come out of his shell and speak, confusing and causing his "friends" to lose interest, for they believed they were dominating the relationship but realized on the phone or in email that they were not as intelligent or unable to speak or write like the young genius, but when in person once again he would act submissive and confuse them even more: some people, very few I presume, came to know "the way he is" and love being with him, although never telling him what it was that prevented him from making new friends: he truly believed that every relationship should be an interplay of love and hate, of domination and subordination, for although he had the ability to dominate every relationship always with his genius, he refused and decided to subordinate himself except when it suited him to take over and get his way. Most people would never know his genius as he walks by, briskly, listens to what you have to say, asking the occasional question, appearing normal or even slightly stupid, unless if you were to ask him a question or bring up a topic he is versed in, then you would hear the most eloquent witty attention grabbing lecture that would leave you in awe, stunned, overwhelmed. I believe he really was all this and more: if you could just read his diary! Its a pity he went insane.

A poem based off the third page of the diary

Truth, opposites
and all other possibilities...
Be self contradictory;

Quoted directly from page:

Everyman that has ever lived -
I feel its life within me.
I am One with life - its so intense!

Exegetical ability!

I beat the game of life.
Now, I must judge wisely,
hold virtue,
but regret comes upon me
I've said it out loud!
I should remember to
restrain my truculence
and, like the parasitic
elements, simply wait,
hold myself from
taking over the crowd
by giving both sides
of the argument, and/or
carrying it out to
its logical conclusion:
learn to listen and
listen to learn

Notes on second page of diary

Trust:
Faith that the other will treat you with an equal amount of respect to the way you treat him/her.
Or is it simply belief that the other will be honest?

Truth:
The true is the whole and it is not.
This very sentence is untrue.

Notes on first page of Diary

Here the author is attempting to justify his claim that God is absurd:

His answer is that God, as what we can not know, cannot have meaning or purpose because we can never know what they might be, and not being able to know something means that it doesn't exist, or at least we cannot know that it exists which the author believes is sufficient for, although he doesn't write anything of the sort, asserting that something's non-existence.

But questions have arisen from this: if absurd can also mean 'having no sufficient reason for being', can we say that God has no reason for being? If God is not, God can still have a reason for being: to give hope through the prospect of the afterlife, to grant redemption from sin and guilt, etc... And these are sufficient. But we cannot know that God does this, rather than the priests, because we cannot know God. Then: Can what we cannot know have a sufficient reason for being? I will leave this open...