Introduction

The inception of thought is understood by Daeronian Philosophy as having its outset subsumed by the essence of Areluma. Few thinkers in the aggregate of Elsvyr or Eldor are willing to catechize this tenet with great resolve. Bearing further into the subject, however, it becomes clear that the metaphysical endowments of the known macrocosm are considered to have commenced due to the existence of some supposed nihility transformation, referred to as a beat or rhythm begotten by “the void” in The Account of Creation. Mythological aspects of this account notwithstanding, this precept of nihility transformation has widely been adhered to as the veracity of the origin of all that may be perceived or conceived. I propose, without the intention of being overtly reprehensible, an alternate explanation. In order to properly expound this theory, I ask the reader to keep an open mind and to thoroughly consider the ascendancy of the elder dragons as appreciated in Mosianite axioms. Consider for a moment, the reverence with which Areluma is held, in contrast with the elder dragons. This tenet seems rather ill-advised when common belief holds that Areluma, Beleg, Avilion, Diadac, and The Forgotten One all were created through the process of nihility transformation, a conclusion popularized by Prefaeras. Through pure reason alone, we can understand the potential of Areluma to not, therefore, be all-powerful. I am not the first to write upon this subject, and even Daeronian philosophy is critical of Arelumia’s omnipotent authority. What then can be proposed as the ultimate provenance of existence, is there not one greater?

1. Narrativist being

The author’s judiciousness may be at fault, but I have found myself unable to find any satisfied truth in any articulation proposed by my fellow man, aside from the cogent argument for our very un-being. Even the arcane aphorism of Prefaeras, “reality extends as far as I am questionless of my own capacity to conceive” offers little consolidation in my admiditally solipsistic thought. For how can I know even this most base of thoughts, that I live, comes from my own conscience. Would a character in a narrative not extend to himself the same uninhibited comfort? The clear counter to this argument, as discussed between Prefaeras and Liuses, is that we attribute this quality to characters, rather than it existing in actuality. This line of reasoning may seem agreeable, but in our plane of reality we are, of course, not able to enter an artificial one. So the qualities can only be speculative and non-empirical.

Nevertheless, this all seems quite preposterous when first proposed. But if the reader allows me, I may be able to convince you that a Narrativist reality is entirely irrefutable. Discarding certainties I often accept on merit, I am often reliant upon personal experience of an existence which resembles an emotional corporeality. While my discernment of the world has often been obscured by human desire and perceptual limits, I seem quite assurant of myself that I do have some grasp on what is real and what isn’t. I remember my childhood as very real although my memories are encased in nostalgia and melancholy. Yet, and I hope the reader may observe likewise, there is a distinct point where my experience of the world seems much more real than the rest of my childhood. How could this be? It seems to me as if there was some component of my life which was reality and some component prior which comparatively appears to be an apologue. I propose that the reality of my existence within this corporeal plane did not stand until it was penned that it was so.

1. The Nature of Unreality

Our macrocosm is rather, a microcosm. The whole of existence is not real in a physical understanding, or as we would hope to discern, but our macrocosm subsists upon another. This reality can be understood as an anecdote weaved by a cosmological cognoscenti. Before I identify who this may be, it is important to recognize the character of such an authority. Perhaps the argument prior, concerning the nature of fictional characters, seemed quite insubstantial. It may be edifying to consider such an argument regarding our own reality as subservient to a greater one. While it may seem irrational to consider the concept of our thoughts having conscience of their own, what of a greater intellect? It seems within our capacity of reason to assume an intellect with greater metaphysical authority should be able to create a narrative which is a reality unto itself. If one is able to even conceive of fiction as its own reality, why would a superlative consciousness be incapable of such a feat in reality?

III. The Author

Contemplating the nature of such a reality, it becomes an area of insatiable curiosity concerning the character of the creator. This creator could be understood as a being outside of our realm of existence with a bit of himself in everything contained in our universe. Everything he writes about our reality is created; when he writes, it is so. Hard to grasp as this concept may be, it is quite irrefutable. Look around you, everything you see has been constructed in this way to be distinguished only in this exact moment. The Author’s intellect is perpetual and preeminent, ever-generating our existence with his thorough, detailed notions of actuality. It is impossible venture forward without submitting to the intent of the Author, as our motives originate only through him. If you doubt this theory, your doubt was penned by the almighty himself, or it is conceivable that I am simply a madman. Regardless, if my speculation proves reality, our cosmos and its contents are to be originated from an individual, perhaps not extraordinary in his realm of being, but in ours, omnipotent. So, if I may indulge in a theologism, I propose this being to have actually manifested himself in an externalization as The Forgotten One. While this claim is hard to verify as so little information is attainable regarding this Elder Dragon, this proposition is in accordance with his character, and the nature of his rumoured library of omni-knowledge.

IV. A Purposeless Purpose

While not savvy to the reception regarding the hypothesis in this text, I am aware from personal narrative, that this proposition proves be quite comfortless for individuals en masse, but this is a simple matter of paradigm. When encountering the nature of how phenomenon authentically is, the personage must envelop the knowledge of one’s sincere cosmic purpose. In a narrativist corporeality, one’s reason is specific, intrinsic, and inevitable. While one’s continuance being reduced to a subservience to a larger form of consciousness isn’t appealing to everyone, it should be. Much of the philosophical canon addresses this consequential worry, the indwelling ends of the individual, and fails to find a universal, indestructible answer. Under narrativism, life cannot be purposeless, for that very purposelessness would be a purpose constructed by the Author. One has a premeditated purpose under the Author, and by merely being one fulfills it. There is right and wrong, good and evil, but it is all to the end of the Author’s will; he makes one disobey because he writes one as such, and is satisfied by it. Consequently narrativism manifests in correspondence with a quintessential comprehension of actuality itself in such a manner that is methodical and incontrovertible despite its uncanny qualities.