Call any idea you want “inaccessible”, but check your contradictions first.
I submit that it is impossible to be the bringer of Truth and the Bringer of punishment, because these two things are mutually exclusive.
If your concern yourself with Truth, then you cannot concern yourself with FORCE, which is contrary to Truth. Speaking Truth to people is to accept that individuals possess their own Will, Moral Agency, and Self. Therefore, you can only seek to convince them, not to force them.
Punishment, forced coercion, threats, violence, destruction, death, hell…these things are the vestiges and vagaries of falsehood. Of lies, deception, manipulation, artifice, and deceit. Therefore, let evil liars employ these things to their own damnation.
You, as a rational being, as a messenger of Truth and Goodness, honesty and reason, should concern yourself with dialog, discussion, and categorical voluntarism.
Existence must have a location…that is, if something exists, it must exist somewhere. And somewhere must be relative. Otherwise, there is no distinction between the thing said to exist and where it exists. It simply exists where it is itself.
But to say something exists at the place of itself is nonsensical. “Itself” is not an answer to the question: “Where does a thing exists?” In fact, such an answer really translates to nowhere. In other words, if a thing doesn’t have a specific location other than itself, it doesn’t have a location at all, because “itself” isn’t a location, it’s a definition. And if a thing does not exist in a location then it doesn’t exist anywhere. And if it doesn’t exist anywhere then it cannot be said to exist at all.
Therefore, everything said to exist must exist in a location relative to something else. This makes any given object’s existence co-dependent upon the existence of another object (or other objects). Which means that existence cannot be the metaphysical primary. Because it is not singular.
Dictated good does not equal morality, it equals legality. And if there is legality there can be no morality because they are at categorical odds with each other. Legality is “right” behavior compelled by violence–by the explicit “right” of violence possessed by the Authority, most often the State, to complete by force behavior to an abstract standard called “The Law”. Thus, legality nullifies choice because violence to compel outcomes makes human will irrelevant.
“Obey or else” is not a choice; it is the antithesis of choice because punishment (the “or else”) is not something that can SERVE the individual; rather, it is the removal of his ownership of self, which is commensurate with the removal of his existence–which is literal when death is the punishment (and the ability to legally put to death is the very irreducible thing which underwrites all of governing authority; without which, there is no government). And if choice is nullified then moral agency is moot. That is, if one is not choosing to do good then there is no good being done, period. Which means that under the auspices of “dictated good”, or “right behavior” made manifest by violence (or the threat of violence, or punishment, which is the same thing) of the Authority which has been established specifically to govern human social interaction (which includes economic value exchange), there can be no moral act. For I submit that when morality is said to be a function of, or even a corollary or partner to law-keeping, then morality is impossible. Force, which necessarily and utterly underwrites the law, in any measure contradicts choice in absolute measure because the two are mutually exclusive. They cannot be integrated.
Dictated good–that is, the establishment of “law” under the auspices (and given absolute efficacy and purpose by the State–centralized, consolidated violence) of Governing Authority (power) to subjective and abstract ends, like “common good”, or the “people’s mandate”–is not morality. It is legality. And the two are completely antipodal. For if the law, not the individual, is the standard of morality to which men may be forced then choice is irrelevant. And if choice is irrelevant, moral agency is irrelevant. And if moral agency is irrelevant then there is no morality.
An illusion of reality must have its categorical root in reality; which makes illusions of reality a direct function of reality. Which means that they are not in fact illusions at all, but merely reality. In other words, something which is an existential illusion is a contradiction, and cannot, by definition, exist. The lack of existence with respect to reality is what makes an illusion an illusion.
An illusion then, is purely an abstract concept. There is no such thing as an illusion qua illusion, because that’s a contradiction. We simply have reality, and functions of reality according to man’s ability to conceptualize it.
Further it means that there is no such thing as an illusion of consciousness, as the determinists like to describe human awareness of Self. For an illusory consciousness is merely a synonym for illusory reality: that is, you cannot know what is real (that is, what is True), because “you” qua “you”–as you understand you–is an illusion. So if reality cannot be an illusion because it must have its categorical root in actual reality, then consciousness cannot be an illusion for the same reason.
Besides, to claim that your consciousness is a direct effect of either an unconscious cause, like the laws of physics, or a conscious one, like God or some super-advanced alien race running a matrix-style computer program, makes the illusion of consciousness impossible because what is entirely an illusion cannot, again, by definition exist. You cannot have an illusion of a thing where the illusion is something distinct from that which is not an illusion because then that thing, being distinct–having “self”—is not an illusion, it is real. An illusion of consciousness which is utterly distinct from its “cause” is nothing less than real consciousness. And if it’s not distinct then it’s not real–it has no self–which means that it doesn’t exist; and thus “it” isn’t an illusion because “it” isn’t anything all.
So stop listening to people trying to convince you that you aren’t real, you have no real awareness, and that you cannot really know anything.
Before you can claim to be caused by some root determining force, like God or Natural/Physical Law, you must be able to define “you” as distinct from that force; otherwise “you” is merely an absolute (categorical) extension of the force which means that there is in fact no “you” at all but merely the determining force. And this makes it impossible to ask the questions “what caused me?” and “what am I?” (which in fact summarize the underlying rationale for claiming you were caused) because there is no frame of reference for “me” at all.
Of course once you define “you” as distinct from the root determining force then you have rendered the claim that you were caused by this force a ridiculous contradiction. The very assertion, in other words, that “X caused me” is rationally impossible.