The problem with the gambit of experimenting with ignorance, or the giving up of the knowledge that one believes that they have, is that the knowledge that one acquires in life can be meant to inform, help, and save one's life. What lies beyond knowledge, or what one thinks one knows at any rate, is difficult to quantify. Surely, there is some feeling that people have that causes them to believe that reality is not completely rational in the ways that are understood by the rigorous logician, or they find that the Logos has in some way been corrupted and twisted by those seeking power.

I contend that what lies beyond the Logos is authoritarianism; that a well-ordered, neutral, and objective Logos that people can refer to and use to at least believe that they have arrived at and communicated sensible conclusions to each other is essential for any society that wishes to live with a sense of mutual equality. Ultimately, if divine authority in and of itself holds any sway over reality, it is made to seem secondary in many situations for the sake of having a means to arrive at a truth using a body of shared methods of thought to come to conclusions.

For a free society to exist, people must be willing to engage with each other using shared methods of argumentation, have room for disagreement, and a willingness to refer to logic and reason for coming to conclusions; that some power is concentrated in methods of arriving at truth that can be agreed upon respective of one's spiritual or ideological beliefs. When people resort to thinking that something is truth just because one says it is true, then one is engaging in authoritarianism. But when one experiences for oneself something that contradicts the established Logos and wishes to share it, then one merely is a mystic or a poet who should not be considered an enemy of a free society.

The method of the logician is to create a system based on axioms derived from observation and analysis of the world that people can use to understand the world through thought and reasoned discourse. If there is something that cannot be fitted into the system, something like a "real-imagination", it is to be understood through experience. To take it further, the spirituality that is paired with rationality in a free society is experiential in such a way that one's experience of the irrational may be questioned by others for not falling into the system of logic based on agreed upon methods of argumentation, but one may still be allowed freedom to say that one has experienced it.

In this manner, to speak of what should happen when it comes to showing others what may lie beyond the accepted and understood system of logic, if one refers to oneself as a prophet whose word must be taken at face value and not questioned, then one is robbing others of the direct experience of the irrational. Hell forbid that a person verify a supposedly Divine or Diabolical reality, or the experience of other worlds, or the existence of a mystical power within oneself!

The fact is, that there are people who will never go far from rationality; not even to accepting the validity of a poet's experience of a thing, and to the point of accusing them of being liars. These people, in a free society, should be allowed to remain content to traffick in the systems of Logic developed by philosophy, the knowledge produced by science, and even to disdain those who would entertain any ideas other than those professed by themselves. Those who prefer it must be allowed to not dream of any supernal light, to live in what is taught by the university, and nothing else.

It must be possible to be conversant with rationalists in how they think, and if one relates an experience that they refuse to acknowledge as real, one should allow them to think this. To have a pretense of cleverness: if one speaks to the dead, is it just for them to order the living to believe what they say, when the rational person may walk to their graves, know that there is a dead body lying under six feet of dirt, and have nothing else to think on the matter?

However, it is not just that those who experience the irrational should be institutionalized by those who profess to be rational and make the extraordinary claim that they know what reality is. If one were to take a great amount of drugs and see many odd things and believe them to be real, it should be the right of the person who experiences these things to believe that they have indeed experienced something seemingly irrational, but real.

If the poet imposes control upon the rationalist, or the rationalist imposes control upon the poet, then one can not have a free society. Either one will be caught up in a system of authoritarianism; the mad poet should be conversant with the Logos and with the rationalist and be able to relate their experience in terms that speak of things that the rationalist has no idea or care of, and the rationalist should be able to dismiss them.

When the mad poets or prophets intend to impose a system of religion that would punish others for partaking of logical arguments against themselves, we have on our hands authoritarianism, and this is antithetical to an enlightened society. Likewise, when those who partake of the Logos seek to provide a solid argument, but decide that a solid argument is a good justification to use force to silence those who claim to experience things that contradict it, it is antithetical to freedom within a society.

Authoritarianism arises when one's thoughts and experiences are considered to be a good justification to silence others and impose one's will on them. My brand of authoritarianism is this: there are cases in which authority is justified in a society that values freedom, and I contend that it is justified only when the physical existence of life is at stake, and that if one wishes to overthrow an authority in other cases, it is entirely justified. Therefore, the purpose of government is to preserve first of all the Earth itself, then the lives of its inhabitants, and having finally taken into consideration the Earth and life, it is the right of the government to a limited extent to protect the people from being exploited by someone who would position themselves as an authority.

Therefore, the existence of the Earth should be ensured through laws and agencies that forbid the destruction of the Earth's environment, that protect the lifeforms living in it from harm through safety regulations, to perhaps provide for a defensive army, and also protect the individual human from being exploited by the government, their employers, and those who wish violence upon the citizenry.