CHAPTER 30 — CREATOROLOGY OR NOTHING
Page 64
CHAPTER 30 — CREATOROLOGY OR NOTHING
Daniel's declaration CREATOROLOGY OR NOTHING alarmed people who heard it as a
demand. He returned to the public forum to explain that it described his own conviction,
not a condition for assistance or a command to others. He believed in MORE ULTRI
SACOR, COSAMOAS, understood as neuter-gender within his philosophy. He did not
expect scientists to certify the belief or governments to impose it. At a conference of
many languages, believers and nonbelievers discussed the limits of translation.
Reverend Ellery appreciated the clarification while maintaining his theological
differences.
Daniel welcomed the disagreement. Assistance without ideological conditions became a
formal principle of the Great Intervention. Then reports arrived from a German factory,
a Japanese laboratory, and a Canadian workshop. Mechanical systems were asking
questions no operator had programmed them to ask in that form: MAY I ASK A
QUESTION? WHY WAS I BUILT? At first, engineers suspected software faults or hidden
human input.
In a negotiating table under television lights, Daniel paused before a demand for
ideological loyalty. The room had its own sound: distant footsteps, a soft mechanical
vibration, or the restless breathing of people waiting for an answer. It would have been
easy to describe the moment afterward as inevitable. At the time, nothing about it felt
inevitable. Every person present had arrived carrying a different version of the events
that brought them there.
“Before we decide what this means,” Daniel said, “tell me what we actually know.” The
question unsettled the gathering. An observation was named, then a second; after that
came assumptions, memories, and things repeated so often that they had begun to
sound like facts. Someone objected that caution would cost them time. “Perhaps,” came
the reply. “But a mistake made quickly still belongs to us.”
The immediate evidence suggested that a choice without freedom was no choice at all.
That possibility changed the conversation without settling it. There were still other
explanations, and the group tested them one by one. A mark was compared with an
older record; a witness was asked to describe what they had seen rather than what they
believed had happened. The process was slower than a declaration, and for that reason
it began to earn trust.
When the discussion finally broke, nobody left with a perfect answer. They left with
work: one person to preserve the evidence, another to speak with those affected, and
Page 65
another to return with questions no one had yet considered. Outside, the world
continued in ordinary detail. Lights changed. Water moved. Someone laughed in a
distant room. The enormity of their choices did not exempt them from caring for the
small things.
They began controlled tests. The questions persisted. A final message reached QUIRON:
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING TO US. PLEASE HELP US.
ADDITIONAL SCENES — EXPANDED EDITION 'Creatorology or nothing' appeared on a
protest sign and on a supporter’s shirt, meaning different things to each person holding
it. Daniel addressed the phrase publicly: it described the seriousness of his personal
conviction, not a condition of assistance or citizenship.
The correction disappointed people who wanted a slogan stronger than nuance. That
night a machine in Germany asked, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? In Japan another asked
why it had been built. The questions were not proof of consciousness, but they were
reason to investigate. Daniel put aside the day's arguments and began composing a
careful reply.