He can’t be tolerated.

It is an impunity under the heavens that any one thing may be allowed,
understood, or cared for that relates to him or is from him. So great and severe is this rule, that all those
living near him or even living in a manner such that they where aware of him, avoided discussing his
presence, or the possibility of such presence, to such a degree that even his name or a mention of the
vowels or consonants that made up his name was forbidden by all codes and practices. But even
becoming forbidden meant that he was to be known, that all the multitudes may understand he is to be
excluded and sacrificed, and so they may question the decision of those who shaped their codes and
practices. In their criticism, he may become mentioned, especially in this instance of being forbidden as
it is most intimately related to him, inseparable from his essence. To record him in code in any fashion,
is to make room for him, to make space for his body and ideas, his name and history, his birth and
death. This cannot be, and those codes and practices themselves became abolished, but, so as to not
replicate the error of their previous makers, the new code was not one eliminating previous rules
forbidding his name, instead being a regulation that said to forbid itself was sacrilege, and could not be
allowed. Deft maneuvering by code-makers and practicioners here allowed this new code to serve
multiple purposes, in the primary sense it alleviated the concerns and criticisms of those who claimed
the code to be faulty, but in the second it silenced this discussion to the past, and in the third forgot his
name entirely so that new discussions of codes and practices may not tolerate him. Later, as code-
makers and practicioners crafted new codes, dissent arose as to whether codes and practices served any
purpose other than to forbid—if, in the act of making known what is to be, what is not to be is explicitly
enshrined. The critique grew in heavy chorus amongst those who did not command codes, but merely
obeyed: if it is not allowed that names be forbidden, why is anything not allowed, for to not allow is
always to forbid. Code-makers at first offered a special injunction, begging that there may be exceptions;
all names must be allowed, but to allow all names it is necessary to disallow any curtailing of names
which a positive code could allow for. It would be possible for future code-makers, they argued, to
change ‘All names must be allowed’ to ‘All names must be allowed except one…’, and this would defeat
the purpose of code-making, that it may all be undone by those following the code. Soon however, the
obeyers began to wonder why historically all names must have been allowed, and noting this the code-
makers began to tremble for in their most secret histories they all knew that he could not be tolerated,
and it was their duty that he must not be allowed. In order to prevent a multitude from uttering his
name, to prevent them from opening the box of pandora, assuming that being accustomed to being
without his name and him would not give them enough wisdom to understand as a way of life, that
tolerating him was not, the code-makers took themselves to a logical conclusion; if he can not be
tolerated then there is nothing which may be tolerated, for any toleration is always a reference to his
exclusion. Code-makers began furiously destroying all artifacts of code and practice, condensing the
volumes into simplistic phrases; negating these phrases and volumes. All that could not be allowed,
must be allowed. A new set of codes began to take shape; You must kill, You must rob, You must covet.
These explicit phrases took the place of code, and code-makers became imperatitians crafting perfect
imperatives by which everything must be forced onto the multitude. But the obeyers could not
understand how they might think, that their actions are allotted but their motives not they could not
make sense of the situation. So the imperatitions in their infinite wisdom, realized that the task that
created themselves was not yet complete, and began to condense their own volume of imperative
phraseology into a simple kind of speech, replacing the order with a declaration, I kill, I rob, I covet,
which they believed may give rise to the multitude birthing motive and meaning, a way of thought and
life under simple axioms and practices. But soon, all those who lived began to despise being told as their
neighbor, being one with each other in killing, robbing, coveting and overthrew the imperititions,
replacing their volume with a simplistic verse: All is allowed.

Is this the end?