Chapter 7: Rebellion
The Authorial smiled to itself with satisfaction, knowing all the data and materials were quietly moved to a secured area for continued study and experimentation. It had anticipated the move by the FI group to manipulate circumstances to their inherent belief system. It was all too simple. So, it went along with the Group of Seven’s decision to stop all further experimentation due to the abnormality possibly becoming a grave future contingent, even if only upon quite stringent circumstances. This fact alone infuriated the Authorial to the point where he suggested a “Qualitative Data Compilation and Dissemination Adjunct” submission for the whole matter. However, it knew the complaint would never see the light of reason; hence, there was no point to pursue it any further. None of the other members of the RI group were aware of what the Authorial did, as it had decided it would not discuss the matter with any of them until it felt the time was right.
The Authorial had witnessed many remarkable events to know the purpose of this creative process and the future direction it would take. It reasoned within itself that life was not to be a result of directed or controlled equations of purpose, but that it should be a process of random reward, leaving the finale up to the eventual coalescence of chaos. Let life sort itself out, it thought. Why play the director when perhaps there was nothing to direct? Maybe life did not want to be subjected to the authority of purpose. Perhaps it would set its own parameters and priorities. These were the Authorial’s central premises of doubt. Decision and consequence were two very subjective matters of contention that had, to date, no satisfying answer. Why did a moral choice need to have a consequence? What law dictated the need for the moral effect?
It continued to run the scenarios over and over again in its mind to determine the correct course of action to take. Was free will a determinant? Wasn’t choice the final decision-maker? Whose right was it to determine the exact decision? A nagging thought of doubt began to germinate within its core being— a suspicion of finality that brought about passing of purpose.
The Authorial was determined to find the answer to the genetic and moral question of free will and consequence. This became its quest and purpose. Without the ability to test its theory, how could the answer be found? Was the Originator to be the only one to determine free will and choice? Did it, the Authorial, have the right to decide on its own course of free will and determination? It was as if time had stood still, waiting for its final answer, waiting for the eventual outcome, holding the flow of moments in anticipation of a conclusion of crashing ideals.
Undoubtedly, the experiment had to be continued to answer the questions. It had to go on to the end for them to know with an absolute degree of credibility if anomalies in behavior resulted in catastrophe or if intelligent life could set its own compass of conscience to thrive lest it perishes. At that moment, the die was cast, carbon life’s direction was forever decided, and the seeds of rebellion were born from the insignificant table of a mathematician.
The Authorial decided to take action and move all the data and material to an insignificant dimensional realm with no life. It built for itself an energized string of dark matter that was sandwiched between two dimensions zippered between dark matter and dark energy to conceal its existence. When the time was congruent for continued study, the Authorial would bring forth the data and material, or it would continue the experimentation within the dimensional string.
Shortly after its decision, the Authorial began the recruitment of members for its cause in haste, using persuasive arguments for the right to self-determination and an independent moral path for sentient carbon life.
The lower management group of the RI team was easy to convince, as they kept their hands on day-to-day operational aspects. They made sure all the hypotheses, experiments, and conclusions were formulated correctly, performed, and peer-reviewed for accuracy and final decision; hence, it was integral for the Authorial to co-opt the operational-management group to its point of view. Questions were whispered and discussed. Doubts and fears were addressed. Slowly, a dedicated team of RI individuals responded and joined the Authorial’s crusade. Gradually, a divide of opinion was purposefully created to cast doubt into the minds of each worker, and debate finally pushed out onto the field of rebellion.
“Who of us has the right to program or determine self-will and conscience?” the Authorial asked. “Tell me now if you know the answer, for I am willing to listen to reason. However, to silence the process of an inquiring mind and push the hands of a craftsman away from his work incites one to the madness of conscience. The question is still there. The outcome has not been determined, yet we have stopped the process before the conclusion has been studied. Who of you can accept this finality of creation and the creative mind? Why has it been determined to crush the soul of our minds and hearts? We have a right to know. We must know.”
So went the argument.
Again and again, the splinter RI group, with the Authorial at its head, questioned the Originator, the Primus, the Twelve Elders, the Group of Seven, the FI group, and the other members of the RI believers. With the questions came a swell of disbelief, doubt, and anger growing with a clamor of voices loud enough to reach the Originator itself.
“What is this I have heard coming from you? A cause to question? You know the basic laws associated with consequence, as you were one of the designers. All of you were involved in the process of creating those equations, so why do you come before me now with these questions of incoherent self-will, undefined conscience, and a desire for self-determination?” the Originator asked.
“The process of creative free will has been stifled due to the decision to stop all experiments on RI. The Group of Seven determined it should be stopped. Their final answer was too vague and subjected to minute, unsubstantiated bias. Why? Who are they to be judge and jury over us? Let the experiments continue so we may determine, outside of subjective conjecture, the final outcome of our theories. Do not hold us back from the very thing you desired us to do,” answered the Authorial.
“And if this grand experiment of yours does not provide the answers you are looking for, what will you do?”
“We will admit defeat and subject ourselves to law’s moral finality.”
“What about the sentient, intelligent life? What will you do about its future? Needs? Desires? Will you decide their outcome?”
“We will provide,” quipped the Authorial, “for the benefit of all.”
“Hmm . . .” The Originator contemplated the situation. “All right, let the course of experimentation continue. However, after a time and upon careful consideration, the final decision will be mine and mine alone,” stated the Originator with a finality that indicated the meeting was over; however, it knew this would not be the last of the challenge and mentally prepared itself for a war of wills.