Truth is under no obligation to make sense. It is inherently irrational, because truth is obliged only to state the facts as they are, without distortion.

Only conclusions and interpretations of facts can be rational or not. They are rational if they follow Aristotelian logic, regardless of the truth of the premises. You can make a perfectly rational logical process that starts with the premise that all men are crocodiles, another premise that Socrates is a man, and correctly concludes that Socrates is a crocodile. Rationality, therefore, doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with truth.

Truth is also under no obligation to be elegant. The Greeks loved elegant lines of thought, and that almost always resulted in their adoption of utter falsehoods. Truth can be messy and inelegant. For instance, the beings on Earth evolved this way not because some elegant master plan of a wise divine being, but because global cooling and a big asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs, and forced the survivors to either learn to hibernate, or to migrate to warmer parts, or develop big enough brain to be able to make clothes and use fire. This entire set of circumstances is inelegant, but true. There’s no circle or a sphere or a dodecahedron underneath, just a huge mess of thermodynamics, entropy, accident and chaos.

The reason why I believe in some things that sound crazy isn’t because I think they are elegant and rational. The entire model that sees Sanat Kumar as an explanation of the mess we are in is the exact opposite of rational elegance. It is ugly and messy and based on randomness and chance and exceptions, not all-encompassing general rules that make elegant models. So, it’s neither its elegance nor rational aesthetics that make it appealing. Unfortunately, it just happens to be the best interpretation of facts and evidence that I managed to formulate. I didn’t even make it up; for the most part, I simply accepted it, because huge parts of it were already provided by Gods, saints and people gifted with particularly good spiritual vision. I actually knew about that model for a decade and a half before I stopped resisting it – I hate it that much. I prefer impersonal models. I prefer a model of gravity that simply states that mass curves space. I wouldn’t like a model that assumes existence of an evil god Tatarus under the Earth, and explains gravity by him trying to suck everything into his realm. However, the fact that I would hate that model doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t accept it if forced to do so by the facts. That I had to accept a model that ascribes huge part of all perceivable phenomena to a quite insane spiritual being who did it all out of hatred for God and out of wish to prove some crazy point, is painful. I actually tried to come up with some other interpretation of the facts, for instance to interpret the Sanat Kumar phenomenon as a very old giant tulpa created in the Earth’s astral field by some form of coherence in thinking and emotions by a very large number of humans and humanoid beings that preceded them in evolution. If this structure were to behave according to the classical tulpa model, it would be a very good explanation of the perceived reality. However, I am aware that this explanation is merely an outburst of my hatred for the inelegance of my primary model, and that I was willing to ignore a significant amount of facts and evidence just to come up with an impersonal, elegant model.

However, if we come to elegance, how is inheriting a bad powerful entity less elegant than making one gradually by means of collective spiritual pathology of mankind? If we imagine that the Sanat Kumar entity was indeed created by mankind, and that mankind perished in an ice age or a nuclear war, and he survived to make weird, irrational things later on, how would his existence and actions be perceived by our successors? Would they perceive the solution as elegant?

So, my best effort at achieving intellectual elegance only produced the same inelegance, one step removed. It’s like the panspermia theory of the beginning of life – it removes the problem of primordial soup from Earth only to displace it into the supernova remnant cloud. It is for this reason that I simply suspended my desire for rational elegance and accepted this mess as it is – filthy, disorderly and inelegant, with the only condition that it be as close to the truth as I can possibly understand it. And that, of course, is the limit of the entire problem, because the actual truth and the actual facts might be completely beyond the grasp of human cognition, and only accessible in a pure spiritual state, unbound by physical incarnation. Be it as it may, I will continue trying to comprehend it, to the best of my abilities, and without conditioning the facts with the prerequisite of rationality. After all, if platypus and blob fish exist, then any kind of weird inelegant shit is not only possible, but probable.