Excerpt for Who Among Three: Recreating the Freeman by , available in its entirety at Smashwords

Who Among Three:

Recreating the Freeman

Who Among Three: Recreating the Freeman




Copyright © 2017 CHIDI J. ANAEBERE

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

ISBN: 9781370926374


To My Neighbor: Mummy Shido






















Click the Universal link to Digital and Print stores


What is Freedom? The chants of the ageless hymn sung to the rhyme of clattering chains. The steps of the iron-clad feet on the road march to the blacksmith shop. The beats of the apprehensive heart on the verge of emission or release. Freedom is the path not the destination.

All men were created free to one purpose: to love. Love is built on the fundamental virtue of obedience. Obedience is a call to worship by participation in the divine creative work for the purpose of fruitfulness. If free works is the path, then it must lead to fruitfulness. And if fruitfulness abounds the destination then obvious is the reward of nourishment and Survival – a most fundamental need. Therefore, Freedom is the means not the end to satisfaction or fulfillment of needs.

What happens then when Freedom is considered the destination or the end in itself? When you possess that which you long for, when you glow with physical satisfaction and emotional well-being, what next do you do for yourself? Then you would realize that your journey to happiness has just begun and your supposed destination was just the starting point. Thence, there could be a turnaround of ideas or innovations that contradict the original concept; a loss of focus or realization of folly.

All men were born naked and free from all entanglements of life. And for all, the choice was mostly between the needs of Survival and Dignity: to remain free or become enslaved. Yet the ones who hide to cover their nakedness in cloth of Dignity and demand for Freedom would be the very ones who sought to uncover themselves in expression of the same Freedom. What contrast! The nascent culture of nudity would depict the graduation to nakedness; a return to the original state at birth or the Garden of Creation. What then is Freedom?

Freedom had remained the central theme of the centurial march for civilization. Despite being the keyword in the literary research for emancipation, the true meaning of Freedom seemed to be lost both in the scroll and soul of activism. There is retrogression in geometric proportion between its original context and modern application. The lot of Freedom has been clearly prescribed in a generation that had continually condemned its very personality to the accused box. Put succinctly, Freedom is on trial.

In defense of Freedom, the need is most imperative for either a reinstatement of the primordial expressions of the Creator or an outright redefinition in consideration of modernism. The contest could be between virtue and rationality. Thence, a voyage through the realm of true knowledge, for the author would demand sailing with the two wings of Revelation and Science. On board this ship, attempt would be made to recreate the freeman with the imaginative will; by arousing him in an arena of utmost need and absolute freedom.

Then, his prime attributes would be deducted by the relative analysis of his choices. In addition, his personality would be determined by the utilization of his tools; and his salvation professed by the propagation of his ministries. A word for the reader though: Fasten your seat belt. Free your mind. And prepare for a journey to self-renewal.

WHO AMONG THREE is the third of a twelve - volume book series on the theme of Freedom.



A man has three needs fundamentally: to feed (Survival), to dress (Dignity)and to reside (Refuge). The nourishment of the human body is necessary for life to thrive. In the absence of essential substrates, the cellular metabolism slows down, energy production decreases and the attendant starvation state is ultimately succeeded by death of the cells. Therefore, the desire to eat is essential for survival. Apart from the comfort offered by the cloth, the man is also in need of the preservation of his dignity.

Nakedness is perceived as out rightly undignified. Knowledge is like the cloth that covers the bare skin of ignorance. In learning is ignorance defied. In character is dignity restored. Learning without character is like constructing an explosive device without the control lid or timer. Thus, character and learning are the two halves of an educated mind. Improperly channeled or misdirected knowledge had proven to be disastrous. The desire is not just that of knowledge but virtues. The need is not just that of cloth but dignity. Thence would the man become that which he wears. And the cloth can define the man.

A style of dressing may create a relative impression or perception of the individual. The need for cloth goes beyond the comfort it offers. It creates an avenue for the exercise of free choice by the individual and display of individual taste and innate trait. However, stipulation of a code of dressing could be reflective of the virtues of obedience and suggestive of the need for dignity and discipline. It should not be seen as the denouncement of freedom to express one’s choice of personal wears and comfort. When a man finds a shelter, he seeks for a place of rest from work and source of refuge from adversity.

What is home but where a man may derive nourishment for his body, comfort for his mind and refuge for his soul? It is a place where one could find satisfaction, dignity and protection. A man’s home is reflective of his needs. In a true home must be found all that the man needs. A house may provide just the shelter. A home offers satisfaction of all three fundamental needs: survival, dignity and refuge. Freedom is defined by choices.

To determine the core attributes of freedom, an analogy could be drawn, with consideration of the most objective or common choice that could be made by an individual, under the assumption of utmost need and absolute freedom to choose. The analogy may be referred to as: The Naked Choice.

Imagine falling asleep and having the worst conceivably nightmare, in which you apparently awoke while still in your dreams and found yourself in an unknown, indecipherable and utterly illusive planet. You are not just the only human being in sight but also the only visible and stationary object or even matter; except for the soil upon which you stood and the clouds above your head. And then you realized that you are stark naked. In addition, the hunger pangs reminded you of an empty stomach; its frequency increasing with the intense heat. Hence, you wished for a covering of any sort. Then in an instant your vision was dimmed by a flash of light, and then it was cleared. And behold right in front of you were three identifiable objects: a bowl of porridge, a roll of cloth and a little hut.

Which among the three would be your most preferred choice? Which of them is to be placed highest above the others in a scale of need? Which could be regarded as the most essential to life; of its sustenance, preservation and comfort? Which would the freest man choose at the zenith of his need, want or desire? Which would be the choice that denotes zero hindrance and least fear? Which is most expressive of love? What is the personality of freedom? What are the attributes of free choice?

For the psychoanalytical determination of the prime characteristics of free choice, three invariable factors or constants must be established namely:

(1)Availability of Choice

(2)Durability of Choice

(3)Responsibility of Choice.

Let’s take them on.

(1) Availability of Choice

IT IS VAIN AND FOOLHARDY to attempt to choose if no option was given. Let’s say an academic quiz that required subjective answers wouldn’t be scored in a multiple-choice format. If there were no option or choice answer enumerated in the scheme of grade, then there would be nil probability of any being scored. Thus, the choices if available must be introduced and clearly defined. However, choices could be nullified on the basis of negligibility or redundancy or outright inexistency.

The possibility of choices must be considered before they are made. When choices are made with their existence unproven and feasibility undetermined, it could amount to diagnostic delusion and empirical fallacy. However, there could be definitive need or imperativeness for opportunities that must be created for certain choices to be born, literally.

To be ‘born’ then would refer to the natural as the foundational base. That is to say, when there are no options, a free man can still create his own opportunities for expression of self, while maintaining the natural order. However, the limit for creativity must be set, for that which enacts the abnormal or unnatural betrays the very essence of freedom. That which is to be created must not be used as tool of destruction. All conceivable ideas are dependent on the capacity of acts within nature for them to be brought to fruition. Violating the boundaries of nature denounces the originality of ideologies, principles, beliefs, practices or concepts. Thus, Originality is the first of the prime attributes of freedom.

Nothing is real that has no origin. Nothing is utterly new in existence. Beyond every product of creativity, there is a starting form which predates the nascent form. In the biological model of cellular synthesis, there would be no transcription in the absence of the starting template. The sequence of nucleic bases in the new strand is complimentary to that in the original strand. Thence the ultimate product would bear a resemblance or reflection of the original source.

Furthermore, the cell is the fundamental unit of the living system. It comprises a free zone, yet possess a restrictive membrane. Its activities are prescribed by a physiological order. In the event of a functional violation or genetic misinformation, there would be impairment of normal cellular activity leading to a benign or gross disorder. The affected cells may engage in random and excessive multiplication as they attempt to aggressively break down the boundaries or restrictions established by nature. The cells could be said to be malfunctioning or diseased. They could be perceived to have betrayed the integrity of the living tissue, and subsequent organ failure could lead to systemic collapse and ultimately death.

And yet the cells would insist on their morbid expression of mobility and unlimited activity within and outside their free zone. This biological model demonstrated the correlation of Originality and Freedom, in relation to cellular metabolism and physiology or pathophysiology. Thus, it prescribes to Originality as a significant and necessary attribute of freedom; for the maintenance of natural order.

Hence, for the sustenance of life and survival of the species, freedom must be considered in terms of the natural not unnatural. Freedom must be regarded as a fundamental virtue not vice; a necessity not luxury. It must be inferred more on the grounds of normality than abnormality.

Now, on The Naked Choice analogy, let’s assume that all three distinct objects – bowl of porridge, roll of cloth and little hut – were introduced and established as choices. That is, they are available, probable and mutually inclusive. When asked to select the options in an inclusive order, the freest man though stark naked would first take the food. Then he would take the cloth and proceed to the shelter. He would eat and then dress in the comfort of the shade. On the other hand, the three choices could be declared available, probable but mutually exclusive. That is, only one choice out of the three could be made at a given time.

Then the freest man would first choose the food. He could then prefer seeking refuge in the shelter to putting on the cloth for his dignity. And assuming a dualistic availability of choices, that is to say a maximum of two choices could be made at a given time. The freest man first choice pair could be food and then shelter, while the second-choice pair could be food and then cloth. To state therefore, Survival is the foremost motivation of the freeman. Conversely, the slave craves for his dignity.

Survival is the utmost need of the man whose liberty is irrefutable and assured. But, for the slave, survival would be less instinctive, for even death could be more appealing if there was an assurance of dignity and honor at the afterlife. Hence, the one who desperately craves to cover his nakedness could be responding to the sudden realization of his enslavement and not in any way acknowledging his freedom.

In deduction, Freedom must be Original. That is, it must be natural, creative and definitive with well-established facts, circumscribed boundaries, historical precedents, cultural heritages and biological perspectives.

(2) Durability of Choice

FOR CHOICE TO BE WORTH making, it must be sustainable over a specified time. It must be assured and fully guaranteed. That is to say, the choice must be constant for it to be logical. For instance, the instructions of the examiner could read: ‘Answer all questions in the first section and select three questions in the second section.’ With zero likelihood of alteration or correction of the instructions, a constancy is established and a choice can be made. In the absence of such instruction or assurance of its constancy, a choice cannot be made. However, a guess could be instigated, as a likely alternative. Yet, an alternative can only be a choice when its constancy is established, otherwise it simply amounts to a gamble.

The act of gamble or trading on uncertainty is the converse or relative reversal of the virtue of free choice. Freedom is definitive of choice. And if free choice is the virtue, then gamble is the vice. However, the rationality for gamble could be buttressed or enacted by reference to legality. But so was the institutionalization of slavery – it was legalized by the state and later abolished.

Legality can be referential but must never be the determinant or rationale for free choice. The freeman does not gamble. His choices are well defined and established; and he selects the one that mostly prescribes his survival. In an assurance of survival, the gamble is diminished or nullified. A slave cannot boast of unlimited opportunities. What he could claim to be a choice is not established or definitive and thus neither distinct nor optional. And more often than not, the gamble isn’t just an option among others; it is the predisposed, overwhelming or sole option. It is a subservient or irresistible attraction or inclination. It is an addiction.

An addict is the slave of his own desires. He does not make a free choice; in reference to the object of desire. He simply goes for it. An instinct or reflex can be considered an accessory of free choice when associated with the virtuous act of discipline, work and obedience. Otherwise instinctive actions could be suggestive of addiction or slavery. For instance, in a soccer game, the goalkeeper stretches his hands to make a reflexive save, the fullback tracks back in awareness for defense of goal post, and the striker positions himself in readiness to shoot at the targeted goalpost. These actions could be reflections of their instinctive abilities, reflexive capacity and innate skills. Yet they invariably reflect the trainings, technical inputs and tactical discipline. Thus, the instinctive moves and shots could be considered or classified as acts of free choice. And the reflexes, compulsions and technicalities could be regarded as accessories of free choice.

However, the preference of direction or angle of deviation during a spot kick would be typical under the context, as that defines the individuality of the player and is most expressive of free choice. If life is a game of choice, then all players must be freemen. For only a slave is denied the right to choose. So, let the freeman play for his Survival, while the slave play for his Dignity. And let all creations witness the justification of the true choice.

Once upon a time, the playing field was a beautiful garden of freewill and opportunities, for all men. But while a few would humbly play for the most coveted prize – the survival of their own soul – by seeking the apple of graceful nourishment from their Creator, the others would hide in their shame imploring for, their dignity, cloth of leaves to cover their nakedness. But who told them they were naked? They were born naked to be lord and masters of their own flesh. They were born free from all entanglements, lures and distractions of life. Who enslaved them, but their own desires?

Dignity is the bait of the slave gods. Slavery isn’t in the chains of subjugation but in the apron-strings of liberty. For when the chains are broken, the strings linger. What is liberty – the inscription on that medal hung around a man’s neck to satisfy his demand for free statues? Soon the man realized he was still lured or pulled on towards a predetermined destination by an invisible nay indoctrinated line of thought; which stretched from the tip of the medal to the hand of the neo-masters. Freedom is neither won by the steel of armory nor the seal of pact, but the scar of heart. When the war ends on the field, the real battle begins in the heart. The scars must ignite for the mind to be illuminated. Enlightenment is the path to freedom.

Now, from The Naked Choice analogy, the freest man wouldn’t consider the option of the bowl of porridge if there was risk of poisoning to death instead of chances of survival. Neither would he prefer a worn out or torn cloth in lieu of better choices. More so, the foundational integrity of the little hut must be assured rather than assumed. If the shelter is liable to collapse, then its preference is lowered on the scale. In relativity, the durability of choice could refer to its malleability and flexibility. These describe the variable factors that enable the determination of choice. In durability, the constancy of a choice could be established. But change is needed as a constant; hence, the need for renewal to forestall stagnation.

Stagnation could lead to obsession, dormancy and redundant rigidity and these predispose to rust, weakening and break up. To maintain its own integrity, a long-lasting base would need to be malleable and flexible to certain external stimuli. This could be seen as a form of biological adaptive mechanism for survival of the free-living system. Thus, the flexibility of a choice enhances the chances of survival.

Now, let’s assume the little hut in the analogy could be substituted by a multibranched tree which could provide a makeshift shelter while the fruits serve as nourishment. In addition, the leaves could be converted into a raffia cloth. In the instance of available and mutually exclusive choice, the freest man would most likely settle for the flexible and multi-tasked option.

A versatile and lasting option is most attractive to the freeman. The choice of immortality nay eternity is his greatest aspiration. The sustenance of the choices describes the rationale and the flexibility evokes the logicality. A man is free to choose, but his choices must reflect his greater benefit in the long run; and must equally portray the capacity to adapt to the unforeseeable future challenges. That is hallmark of free choice.

In deduction, Freedom must be Rational. That is to say, it must be logical, renewable, adaptive, sustainable and progressive. Any demand for freedom not founded on true aspiration, common dream and assured promise for the promotion of individual, progress of indigenous community and partnership of neighboring nations, could be considered premature, narcissistic and cynical. Such demands could have been ignited by the splints of greed, spite and antagonism of the virtues of communal existence. The immediate gain of the nascent autonomous entity must not be seen to be neutralized in the aftermath of emerging challenges in the likes of economic insufficiency, political instability and worst of all social stratification. Responsible considerations must be made of the resultant effects or likely consequences of one’s apprehension of freedom, on a fellow man on the other side of the divide. Freedom is not won that doesn’t project aspirations, promote development, preserve heritage, protect values, profess truth, proffer justice and profuse love.

(3) Responsibility of Choice

AT THE CENTER AND COORDINATE of all decision-making sphere is the invisible but indispensable axis – the moral pivot. If we can correlate a sphere and free choice: the subject or hand that draws the sphere can refer the Originator. The circumference or visible line connecting the points infers the Rationale or logical locus. And the imaginary straight lines subdividing the sphere and connecting the cardinal points would describe the Moral coordinates. The earth is a typical sphere.

Can the earth rotate without its axis? What is movement without direction? Can the ship sail without its rudder? What is freedom without choice? And what is choice without morality? The demand of responsibility is made on every freeman. The most indispensable gift is accompanied with burden of responsibility. This would curtail or checkmate the attendant excesses in utilization. Every gift has got its lift. The lift can either take you up or down. Every blessing has got its cross. The cross is the ladder; you either climb to the zenith or crash to the depth. Instances of expression of responsibility could be: parental upkeep of the newborn, diligence of the employee, studiousness of the student and accountability of the public servant.

Every right has got its obligation. And every choice has got its virtue. Rights could be legal, and even fundamental, yet arguably short of acceptable or moral standards. Rights are like permits that enable access to a secured location. When the permits are withdrawn the access is automatically restricted; but not so with freedom.

A freeman requires no permit to access his options or justify his choices. His access is upheld by the responsibility or moral obligation to the structure or subject in question. Between rights and free choices, the dichotomy is likened to the distinction between legality and morality.

All free choices are considered inalienable rights; but not all rights are considered free choices. Ipso facto, not all rights are inalienable; albeit legal. For instance, the laws of the State that enabled the ownership of arms and the use of same in self-defense may have granted the rights to shoot at the suspicious trespasser or burglar. Yet, the landowner though fully armed would hesitate to press the trigger. That hesitation or restraint, even in the face of danger or threat to own life and the legal rights to self-protection, would amount to the exercise or expression of free choice. The same reference could be made to a trained cop or soldier who despite the compulsion or standing order to shoot at a classified target or soft threat, would hesitate. Though the landowner or soldier has got the license and right to kill, yet in real sense he is free to spare. Put succinctly: to kill is right, to spare is free.

To note, the obligation to act decisively in preservation of life or protection of the innocent is not lost on the altar of moral naivety. However, the exercise of one’s right in voidance of morality is not an expression of free choice. Freedom is less founded on legality than morality. It is a fundamental virtue. It is inherent and graceful. And virtues are the moral rudders of the freeman.

In another instance, let’s infer from the Decalogue. It required a slave to keep the code of rights and wrongs or dos and don’ts. But, the freeman thrives in the obedience of the one true or greatest virtue: love. The law is for the slave. The virtue is for the freeman. Freedom is the summation of rights; and love is the summation of laws.

Now in reference to The Naked Choice, the introduction of an additional factor or appearance of a new entrant at the scene say, a child, would alter drastically the dimension of choice. The freest man would then put the need of the child on a higher scale than his own. Thence, his fundamental rights became superseded by a more responsible choice or higher moral consideration, the need of the child. However, the responsibility of choice doesn’t suppose the relinquishing or denial of personal need. Rather, it suggests a free consideration in decision making of the survival, dignity and refuge of all, including oneself. That is to say, that the demand of freedom must reflect the opinion and benefit of others; both those in the same neighborhood and the remote community. When the satisfaction of one’s need juxtaposes with the unfair denial of his neighbor, the legality is queried, the moral basis denounced and the choice nullified. Freedom is the righteous end of rights. It is the moral consideration of logicalities and legalities. The laws of morality tilt to the threshold of freedom. The freeman is the moral man.

In deduction, Freedom must be Moral. It must be virtuous, directional, purposeful and selfless.

Thence, to state the prime attributes of Freedom: Originality, Rationality and Morality. It’s all or none! That is, the three attributes must be clearly expressed in any choice or act, for freedom to be defined. If it is not Original, Rational and Moral, then it is not free. And if it is not free, it is not a choice.

Freedom is like the living water. He that thirsts for it must seek the most likely source or origin, the natural spring. All that must be created could be sourced from the original building block, the template. Nothing is really new. That which is considered new is actually a remolding of the old. The template describes an original form traceable to creation, or the Creator Himself. All things had their primordial existence in the thoughts of the Creator. But for the unnatural, what can be defined as the foundational bedrock, if the template is unknown and the originality in doubt? On what can be justified the unwholesome expression of the unnatural desires or psychosexual affiliations?

Nature can be described by historical heritages; of language, race, tribe, tradition, and culture. Nature is reflected on the biological processes that describes the compatibility of life and biotic existence; of plants and animals. These could provide evidence for verification of facts; their authenticity and originality. Could that which is unnatural or abnormal constitute or refer to an act of originality? Had the non-biotic or physical elements ever conspired to defy their regulated or ordered existence? Should the forces of gravity, inertia, attraction and momentum ever decline their chosen roles in sustenance of life and civilization? The motions of the non-biotic elements are constant and ordered and any digression in such could spell doom for life and existence as it were. All that breathes can express free choice. All that lives must be free. Freedom is the vindication of creation.

Freedom begins and ends with life; for there are no choices to be made in the netherworld. Therefore, death is the eternal bondage. And the fear of death is the foremost enslavement. Though the real fear goes beyond death to the termination of consciousness. The immortals are the free souls holding unto their perpetual survival. Freedom is likened in the choice attitude towards a ripened fruit on a tall tree.

The one who desires to eat the fruit must rationalize on the best approach to pluck it. He could choose to climb the tree. He could employ the use of a long pole. He could also prefer to throw missiles directly at the targeted fruit; at the measured risk of a passerby being within the range of the projectile. Whichever method employed will depend on the skillful ability, logical disposition or moral attribute of the individual. In the march for freedom, answers to queries that borders on the individual dream or purpose of the struggles, sustenance of the goals when achieved, personal progress and development of all concerned, must be provided.

Freedom is likened in an unborn child in the womb or the newborn still dependent exclusively on maternal breast milk. Both the expectant and nursing mothers had acknowledged the responsibility bestowed upon them by their nascent physiological state; and the fact that their lives and daily activities henceforth must revolve around the child whom welfare supersedes that of any other person. The mother must become mindful of what she eats and wears and where she goes. Her fundamental rights had become attenuated in the presence of the neediest creature, the child.

Freedom is likened in the wise counsel of an elderly consultant physician given to a much younger house officer who was posted to a primary health care center of a remote village. The young doctor was making a presentation or periodic report of his activities; and described how on a particular day in the event of the ensuing epidemic, he could only attend to a maximal number of patients and had to retire from work. Later, he would learn that all the patients he treated recovered while the ones that died where those he couldn’t see. He obviously expected a commendation. But, the older man looking fixedly at him replied:

Son, as far I am concerned the ones that died were the ones you saw.’

The real judge of a man’s merit isn’t the battles he won, but the one he lost. That is the one that counts against him. That is the one that echoes in history. That is the one that is kept in eternal memory. Thus, for the freeman, death is the one true fall. His expected doom. His gateway to glory. His trials and perceived successes or failures are merely the ordained steps to his destiny.

What he witnesses is abundance of life: pain and joy, sickness and health, defeat and victory, humiliation and honor, birth and death. His life in entirety is the one true rise. Triumph!



Truth is life. The sustenance of life is the breath of freedom. The worth of freedom is valued in good works. The purpose of work is the harvest of fruits. A bountiful harvest begets a heart of gratitude. Thanksgiving is the sanctification of worship. Worship is the renewal of communion with the Creator. For, creation itself was the first act of worship. In creation was the communion instituted, of the Creator and man. And in creativity is humanity aligned with divinity. A man is the image of his Creator. The capacity to bring into existence that which was priory nonexistent reflects the divine. Of all creatures, in man alone is seen the fullest expression of this creative capacity.

That distinguishes him as the star of creation and the beauty of life. In Him is expressed ultimate freedom and life in abundance. In Him is found the truth. For only with Him can all things be possible. And nothing is withheld from Him. All must be available to Him; all that is essential to the discovery of his purpose and fulfillment of his destiny. Thus, for the duty of work and purpose of fruitfulness, the Creator has provided the freeman three basic assets or tools: Time, Talent and Treasures.

Individually, the tools can be characterized. They are distinctive, definitive and quantitative. Commonly, their utility is mutually inclusive. The use of either talent or treasure is dependent on the factor of time. Talent is progressively developed or fine-tuned with time, on the other hand, talent or skillful utilization of labor can be time saving. Treasures can be exchanged for both talent development and effective time management. The progression or retrogression of treasures can be apparent and effective in time and effective utilization of talent could maximize the treasure base. In the state of dormancy of both talent and treasures, the usage of time may be considered wasteful. In the scarcity or attenuation of treasures, the combination of time and talent can thrive to economically generate resources. And in the event of non-discovery or neglect of talent, time and treasures would appear to suffice, albeit in the interim. However, among the three, time can be considered the prime determinant or constant.

Light is the ultimate source of time. The stars are the sources of light. The sun is the prominent star. Its regulated or ordered distinctiveness in appearance had instigated the determination, or dichotomy, of day and night. A reference could be made to the story of creation. In the beginning, there was void – darkness and oblivion. And the expression of light led to awakening of consciousness and the institution of the day in lieu of the night.

Now, in the character of creation, for all forces that existed a contrary extremity was needed for counteraction and balance. Thus, the need for light in the midst of darkness. And the reality of the pre-existing void was as definitive as the nascent light. The void is the infinite constant. The light is the variable constant; in relation to the earth. The appearance of light is periodic as described by human perceptiveness to it. Thus, time is the determinant factor; that which reflected the light and void in discernable or measurable unit for benefit of the creature.

Time is a true reflection of light and invariably an expression of the Creator. Time is the constant of ‘infinite variability’. The infinity of time refers to its divine source; while the variability of time refers to the human perspective or relativity to the divine. Thus, time could be seen as the measure of relativity between the creature and the Creator, mortality and immortality, ephemerality and eternity.

By that very fact, the gift of the Creator was not just that of time but also light, from the beginning. And of what purpose could a time serve if not in reference to the given assignment or work; its significance in life. Again, the variability of time is purely a function of the human perspective in relation to the reception of light.

All things created can only exist in a balance of two extremities – the pendulum model. The regulation factor is the depiction of time. Can it then be proposed that the secret of immortality rests on the breakdown of consciousness of time that instituted the ages? But what then could happen to the rationality of the mind and civilization as a whole? Can it also be suggestive that immortality outreaches the physical, or regulated or measured, realm of existence?

In understanding of the very concept of time, the earth model could be employed. The earth planet rotates on its axis and revolves round the sun. The sun is constant or stationary while the earth is variable or mobile. The sun constantly radiates light. The rotation of the earth is what determines the luminous perspective of the inhabitants. That is to say, what changes isn’t the source of light but the view of the recipient or observer. Time is the term that refers the variability in perceptions in relation to light. What could serve as the accurate and convenient measure of time?

Now, assuming all things are made of light, and light is the source of time, then all things or matter – biotic and non-biotic –are convertible as a measure of time. Change is the common factor or principle applied in all measurement of time. It is the variable that denotes the constancy of existence. All in existence must occur in parallel duality. And the variable is needed to counteract or regulate the constant. In communion with the Creator, all creatures must apply the variability of worship. And in understanding of immortality, the mortal would apply the variability of time. The resultant would be the prescription of eternity. Now, time existed only for the physical or mortal realm.

Eternity thus refers to the immeasurable or unquantifiable; the constant, the unchangeable, the divine. Again, all measurement of time is dependent on the application of change. That which can be altered is that which can be measured. The perfect can’t be measured or regulated. The purity of a substance is measured in relation to its counteractive impurity – parallel duality.

If it is utterly or perfectly pure, then it is immeasurable or infinitesimal; that is, it belongs to the realm of eternity or extreme perfection. Alteration of perfection or natural order is what occasioned the capacity or need for regulation or estimation.

Change initiates the auto-regulatory mechanism of life which attempts to restore the natural order of things by first estimating or measuring the degree of deviation from the origin. The change in the position of the earth instigates a journey of return to starting point; and this is regulated by time. All things must return to perfection, ultimately. This is the Principle of Eternity – the progression towards the original state or realm of rest of all beings in primordial order or perfect existence.

Now, if creation was in perfection then, why the institution of change? Who altered the natural order of things and hence established the need for restoration? When in memorial did time emerge? And how can the truest measure of all things be determined? What is change?

Change is a determinant of physical existence. The earth rotates and revolves. The beings renew and evolve. Change is a resultant of choice and expression of freewill. The ability and willingness to change is an expression of freedom. The constant and the immortal is the perfect and unchangeable. However, in the physical realm, the parallel or opposing feature must be established to maintain the duality: of immortality and mortality, of life and death. Hence, there is the need of Change to counteract the constant; to establish growth and assure continuous existence.

Change is the variability factor and like worship assures the renewal of creation. For growth to occur, a being must alter its position, or stretch its boundaries, or expand its horizon. For life to persist, a being must change. Change is a necessity for growth. And growth is a journey towards perfection. Since all biotic beings would die, then death is the access to perfect knowledge or the ultimate teacher. Hence, all growths lead to death – the ultimate route to perfection – at which point the transcending to the realm of immortality ensues.

Creation is a work in progress. And if perfection is the ultimate target or end point for all creatures, then perfection was the original state. And Creation was perfect from the beginning! Yet still, what instituted or triggered off the change? How did the beings fall from the state of perfection? All creatures had their original state of perfection which they inadvertently strive to return or evolve to. And the rate of return to perfection or graduation of change is recorded in the scale of time; its significance. But what could be the truest measure of Time?

In what could be seen the most obvious manifestation of change? Or what could be regarded as the most apparent reflection of light? The Days and the Ages. The sun rises and sets in a regular pattern, transmitting its energy to the beings which is invariably reflected in their ages. The ageing process in the physiological man could be reflected on his skin. The skin pigment -melanin- absorbs solar radiation. The age of plants could be reflected on its leaves. The chlorophyll pigment absorbs the solar radiation. Age is a measure of life.

During creation, life came into existence only sequel to the emergence of light. It could then be inferred that all that were created before light, are not measurable by ‘age’; and neither are they measurable independently by any standard unit except in relation to an illuminous substance. For instance, water existed before light. And water can only be measured in relation to its volume in a standard vessel or container. The seas and the oceans would have no true measurement in terms of age of existence. Hence it could be said that water is the fluid of life. For only that which is ageless could lead man to immortality. This may not be said of that which existed after light. Light is the fundamental basis of all measurement. All things in existence can only be weighed or standardized in ultimate reference to light.

If light is the determinant of life, then death is simply the expulsion of light or the return to void. When light is taken away from any living being or thing, what remains is dead matter. Hence, the cessation of light is the end of life; and the termination of time is the end of civilization. Biologically, there can be no growth without light. For the plant cell, the presence of light is a prerequisite for photosynthesis with subsequent nutritional provision and energy generation. And in the human cells, its very survival depends on respiration which is the reversal of photosynthesis. Thus, the substrate of cellular respiration is the product of light dependent biosynthesis.

Age is successively differentiated into days, hours, minutes, seconds and moments of existence. All things could yet be rated and all ages could yet be determined in reference to light. And the year of light could yet be expressible. This could be more reflexive of the understanding and acceptance of prehistoric events of creation that led to the emergence of life. It could be an acknowledgement of the contemporary empirical data as related to core revelation. Hence, the year of light could refer to the Year of the One – who became the Light of the world. Through Him, the relationship between light and freedom could be suggested; since He is also the personification of Freedom. He is the Freeman. The Son of Man.

What is freedom, but the grant or access to that which is beyond reach? For that which is truly free is that which couldn’t be paid for, not even by works. Again, that which one couldn’t otherwise afford, earn on merit or qualify for is that which could be considered a free gift. Now, the gift of free light is utmost to all men and beings. And in this gift men assimilated the desire to become free themselves – as free as light. Only receptors of light could transmit the signal of light. Physically, all incident light is either reflected or refracted. Hence, the medium of freedom could be likened to a mirror or glass prism. And all that received its light must reflect or give out its rays to all. In the light of freedom, shall all days and ages, all beings supreme and human, all things living and non-living, find its truest identity, expression and purpose.

Grace is that which was offered free to all men. And what justification could there be of freedom without grace? Works is that which a man can lay account of, and thus qualify for appropriate reward. But that which can’t be worked for is true light. In freedom is light truly reflected. Note that the light is not an internal reflection upon itself, for that could amount to an illusion or mirage. It is rather that of refraction to others, the true purpose of the incident light. In grace is freedom truly assured.

Now, what is the assurance of a gift? To the one who gives, the expression would be: ‘Take, it’s yours.’

And to the one who receives: ‘I accept, it’s mine.’

Assuming the condition of total freedom for both the giver and receiver, what chances are there for the gift to be returned either on demand of the giver or decision of the receiver? If ever they exist, the chances are voidable on the virtue of freedom. That is to say, such demand or decision must be considered null in the courts of men. A gift of freedom is ever considered perpetual or non-refundable even in the realm of the Spirit.

Comparatively, for the grant of remuneration, the employer would say: ‘Take, it’s your work due.

And the worker would reply: ‘I accept, it’s my merit.’

Here the reward or payment was given on the merit of work done or service rendered. Yet still, the sustenance of service is agreed, the durability of product specified, and the merit of work guaranteed.

To which much is given, much is expected.’

However, inquiries could be raised on the integrity of promise (of reward) since it was dependent on the value of indefinite work! The chances exist for a refund to be claimed on the event of failed guarantee of product.

To him that produces not, even the one he has is taken away from him.’

What then is the assurance of reward for a work of merit? Between gifts and rewards, the essence is determined on the auspices of freedom. The free gift is assured. It is independent of merit. It is the gift of light, and cannot be destroyed. However, the reward is assured for an honest work. The expectation of the promise rests on the seal of the covenant. The seal could be the blood and sweat of sacrifice – the work of merit! What if the assurance of a free gift would rest upon the work of merit? That is to say, the gift is free and the reward is merited. It is nonrefundable and yet perpetually guaranteed. Double assurance! In work is freedom assured. In grace is freedom doubly assured!! Truth.

Purchase this book or download sample versions for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-25 show above.)