An Interview with Keziah James on Hedonism

The Radiant Abyss is a longer story: I will post it online - webcyte - after rejection -> webcyte itself under construction. komputer is in the shoppe.

David (Agent): Keziah, thanks for answering a few questions. The Radiant Abyss… it’s undeniably powerful. Your prose is incendiary. But the core philosophy… pure, unadulterated hedonism presented as the highest good… it’s causing significant unease here for publication, even among those who admire the writing. Let’s start bluntly: Isn’t your central thesis – that the relentless, conscious pursuit of personal pleasure is the only meaningful ethical imperative – fundamentally, dangerously selfish? Doesn’t it negate responsibility, empathy, even love?

[ note: i never said it was the ‘highest’ good, it’s really just a story. ]

Keziah James: “Selfish,” um, ok? The first shield society throws up, isn’t it? A reflex born of guilt and centuries of ascetic conditioning. I reject the premise entirely. What is more profoundly selfish than demanding others sacrifice their potential for joy on the altar of your own comfort, your own unexamined moral codes, or some abstract notion of collective suffering? The pursuit of my deepest, most exquisite pleasure isn’t theft; it’s an act of radical authenticity. It requires immense self-knowledge and courage. To call that selfish is to confuse self-actualization with theft. True empathy flows from a fulfilled self, not an empty, martyred one.

[ note: self-actualization is at the top of the hierarchy. and i do practically everything meaningful for FREE . . . like the doods who broke their backs carrying rocks in egypt. ]

David: You frame it as authenticity, but critics will argue it’s a philosophy for the privileged. Not everyone can chase transcendent pleasures. What about those trapped in poverty, oppression, or chronic pain? Doesn’t your absolute defense of hedonism ignore, even mock, their reality? Doesn’t it become a luxury of the few?

[note: unusual question, the story was about an underprivileged dominatrix. Moreover, not philosophy. ]
 
Keziah: Privilege? Absolutely, the means to pursue certain forms of pleasure are unevenly distributed. That is a societal failing, a crime against human potential, not an indictment of pleasure itself. But David, the core principle – the imperative to seek joy, to minimize suffering for oneself – that is universal. Hedonism isn’t about champagne and caviar; it’s about recognizing that within the confines of your existence, however brutal, the pursuit of whatever alleviates suffering and sparks joy is not just valid, it is sacred. To deny anyone that imperative, to tell them their suffering is noble or necessary for some greater, unseen good – or GOD -, that is the true mockery. My story humbly says that no one should accept that lie.

David: You speak of minimizing suffering, but doesn’t unfettered hedonism inevitably cause suffering? If my greatest pleasure lies in exploiting others, in domination, in excess that harms the environment or community… does your philosophy grant me carte blanche? Where do you draw the line? Or is there no line?

[ note: i am glad he remembered the domination part! ]

Keziah: A crucial misunderstanding. True hedonism, conscious hedonism, is not mindless impulse. It is deeply considered. The pleasure derived from causing suffering is inherently shallow, fleeting, and ultimately self-destructive. It creates friction, resentment, instability – states antithetical to sustained, profound pleasure. The intelligent hedonist understands that sustainable, exquisite joy is built on harmony, connection, and the flourishing of one’s environment. Exploitation is the tool of the unimaginative pleasure-seeker, the one too lazy or fearful to seek deeper, more resonant sources of fulfillment. Procrastinators, perhaps? My philosophy demands rigorous self-honesty: does this act truly lead to deeper, richer joy, or is it a cheap thrill that poisons the well? The line is drawn by the pursuit of depth and sustainability in pleasure, not by external, arbitrary rules. Harming others ultimately harms the self’s capacity for joy. It’s pragmatism, not morality.

[ note: the harmony and connection i speak of – it’s an afterthought – i rarely see on substack: prove me wrong: subscribe: i will likely follow you back! JOY. ]

David: You reject traditional morality, calling it a “shackle.” But those structures – duty, sacrifice, deferred gratification – built civilizations, families, institutions. Isn’t your radiant abyss just… chaos? An invitation to societal collapse where nothing matters but the next individual high?

[ note: did i 🤔 use the word ‘shackle,’ i wish i did, and now i need to add it! ]

Keziah: “Built civilizations?” Or built pyramids on the backs of slaves? Built empires through genocide like Gaza? Built families rife with silent despair and unfulfilled longing? David, look at the world built on duty and sacrifice! It’s a world drowning in anxiety, depression, addiction, and environmental ruin – the very fruits of denied pleasure and misplaced sacrifice. I feel sorry for those who died at D-day to propagate the shite that exists now. What collapses under hedonism isn’t society, but the false structures propped up by guilt and fear. Imagine a society where individuals are truly empowered to seek their.r deepest joy, intelligently and responsibly. The energy, creativity, and genuine connection that would unleash. Cooperation wouldn’t stem from grim duty, but from the shared understanding that mutual flourishing is the path to the deepest individual and collective pleasure. It’s not chaos; it’s a higher, more vibrant order emerging from authentic desire, not coerced compliance.

[ note: i actually kinda feel we are on the bridge of societal collapse, nevertheless. i am coincidentally a misanthropic man. ]

David: Final question, Keziah. Many will call this essay dangerous. That it could lead people down destructive paths, justifying addiction, recklessness, the abandonment of responsibility. How do you answer the charge that your absolute defense of hedonism is, ultimately, irresponsible?

[ note: before reading, i am also an unapologetic agnostic. ]

Keziah: The most dangerous idea is the one we’ve been force-fed for millennia: that life is about suffering, that joy is suspect, that our deepest desires are sinful or trivial. That is the philosophy that leads to quiet desperation, to lives unlived, to the real, slow-motion destruction of the human spirit. My story -and beliefs- aren’t an invitation to recklessness; it’s a call to consciousness. It demands we ask: What truly brings me alive? What diminishes my suffering? And then, with courage and intelligence, to pursue it relentlessly. If that path is labeled ‘dangerous’ by those who prefer the safety of the dimly lit cage – and shackles, so be it. Irresponsible? No. It is the most profound responsibility we have: to refuse to waste this singular, blazing opportunity for existence. To embrace the radiant abyss is to choose life, fiercely and unapologetically. That is the only responsibility worth having. Let them call it dangerous. Truth often is.

David: Thank you, Keziah. You leave us… a lot to consider. The controversy is guaranteed. The conversation starts now.

Keziah: Good. Let it burn lad. Like this cigarette . . . lol . . .

[ note: it was actually a 7000 mg sativa vape – odorless. ]