Scientism: When science becomes a clumsy and dangerous religion

Science is fine…as science; and what science is, is a methodology man uses to describe various relative relationships—between objects, between himself and objects, between himself and others, etc.—he observes in his environment. Via this methodology he creates an abstract conceptual framework, commonly mathematics, which then can be transferred and transmitted around the world with relative ease, in language, spoken and written, and used to whatever practical (like building a ship), or abstract (like charting a shipping route), end is desired. Science is a cognitive, conceptual tool the observer, mankind, uses to organize that which he observers, period, full stop. Go no further. This is the sum and substance of science. Anything more than this is a lie.

Take evolution for example. In the purely scientific sense, evolution is perfectly fine and reasonable, and should pose no threat whatsoever to any spiritual person, like the Christian, for instance…because the idea that evolution has anything to say about God, the nature of man, or the nature of reality is ridiculous. Evolution is literally nothing more than a concept man uses to describe a certain, specific relationship he observes in his environment—for example, what this fossil looks like relative to that fossil…or whatever. To add to this any metaphysical assertion, or to use it to deny that there is any such thing as the metaphysical at all, and evolution becomes a philosophy…and, sorry, it is just not that. At all.

Ask the evolutionary biologist to describe the philosophy of evolution and he will give you a confused look every time. Even he knows (or should) that one has nothing to do with the other…and yet so many atheists will call the Christian a fool for believing in God and use evolution as “proof” of their argument, even though the concept of “God” has everything to do with what evolution does not—the nature, value, and meaning of Man and Creation, and, perhaps most poignantly, consciousness—whereas evolution merely and only deals with the description.

The atheistic response to this fact is to cultish-ly and predictably deny that anything other than the description actually exists. There is nothing objective beyond the description, they assert; there is no real value nor meaning nor purpose…you can’t get an “ought from an is”, they will explain. Of course they ignore or don’t realize that the denial of any real philosophical meaning to man and creation is in fact a value judgment because it implies that the pure description of reality, removed from value, meaning, or purpose, is preferable because it is more truthful; and truth is obviously and observably more efficacious. Which means that truth is more valuable. See the irony?

The fact is that the only way that any observer (that is, any human being) can make a truth claim in the first place is by conceding at the very least implicitly that the truth has more objective value than a falsehood. Without a root, inexorable value distinction between truth and falsehood then what is the difference? None at all. If there is no objective value to truth and falsehood, then there can be no objective purpose, which means no objective way of telling the difference. In other words, if truth and falsehood have no objective value then they have no objective purpose, thus there is no objective way to apply truth and falsehood in order to verify and/or determine which is objectively which.

The fact is that there simply cannot be any description (truth claim) without prescription (value claim)—no truth without value; no epistemology without ethics; no science without philosophy; no physics without metaphysics. The argument that there is only description but no prescription, only “is” but never “ought”, only truth but no value, is fundamentally to deny consciousness—which is precisely what these scientific mystics do—and to deny that anyone is conscious is to deny that anyone is ever actually saying anything at all. So why bother listening to them…”them”being the peddlers of this nonsense? There is no “them”. “Them” doesn’t exist!


Do I have a problem with science qua science? Not at all. My problem is with what science has become, which is religion. Not that I have a problem with religion, but science makes for a particularly offensive, clumsy, and stupid religion…a uniquely unsophisticated gnostic-type mysticism I call Scientific Determinism, but which I think is more popularly called Scientism. I call it clumsy, stupid, and unsophisticated because it, by design, has no definable, articulable metaphysics or ethics, and openly denies them, whilst implicitly pushing the ever-loving daylights out of them to the point that its proponents (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens) are perhaps the most vicious and sarcastic religious disciples I’ve ever had the displeasure of hearing. These hypocrites seethe at other belief systems to the point of pure loathing whilst pretending their metaphysics and ethics (i.e. meaning and value) don’t actually exist…which leaves one to ask why all the hate then? The answer is of course that they see other gods as threat their own; but since they cannot actually defend their god because they cannot articulate their own metaphysics, because their religion is stupid, they vomit all over everyone else’s god and pretend that they don’t actually have one. The hypocrisy breaks the scale.

In this religious capacity—science as scientism; where science co-opts metaphysics whilst pretending to reject them—science is no longer an innocent conceptual tool, but an amateurish yet supremely arrogant and destructive philosophy which seeks to describe the nature of man and the nature of his environment; the nature of the relationship between them; the nature of his existence; and, most disturbingly, the value of his creation and consciousness, by promoting the idea to themselves and others that none of this is actually real. Instead of seeing man as an objective frame of reference, which he is (the Observer), Scientism makes man’s frame of reference as the conscious observer a product of science…of “natural law” and “mathematics”, the “language of the universe”. The “laws of nature” are no longer conceptual tools invented by man to describe his environment and his place in it, but are now his Creator. In other words, they are no longer tools but gods. Man the observer is, in the religion of Scientism, now a direct function of that which he observes.

This of course is a rank contradiction in every rational and logical sense, but it is to be expected as Scientism is nothing more than bog-standard mysticism minus the explicit metaphysics and ethics, and, like bog-standard mysticism, Scientism looks first to subvert man, then murder him. Which it will do, inevitably, if left to its logical conclusion.

Under the mysticism of Scientism, science is no longer a conceptual framework for man to use in service to himself, but a cause of man, himself, which is ironically about the least scientific premise possible, should someone have thousand years to think one up. “Laws of nature”, like evolution, are not longer a conceptual abstraction that man creates from his own inexorably conscious frame of reference, but have their own “objective” and distinct existence “outside” of him. They are “discovered”, not contrived. Science is no longer a product of man’s consciousness, in other words, but man’s consciousness is a product of science…or it isn’t, and consciousness is punted into the cosmic abyss of epiphenomenon or transient illusion or some other such rubbish. The point is that under Scientism, the observer is somehow a direct function of what he observes; and the very inexorable distinction which is utterly required for observation to occur in the first place is magically obliterated.

If this isn’t rank religious mysticism then nothing is.

Proponents of Scientism deliberately or implicitly attempt to sidestep this bit of metaphysical pap by asserting that observation, by which is meant consciousness, is just an illusion, a-la Sam Harris…or that consciousness is some kind of ontologically transient epiphenomenon at best—certainly not objective, absolute, and/or epistemologically essential—as if this obscures the clumsy metaphysics rather than spotlight them…and, to be fair, sadly it does much of the time. Science as Scientism is no longer about what the observer observes but what the observer is; and what he is is nothing.

This is a death cult, period. Take a look around, friends…read the paper, watch the news, and listen to your political leaders…what solutions are they proposing for the world’s problems? Trust they science they say…and what does science think of you as an ontological individual with moral worth and agency? Not much. Not much at all.

Again, science is now just bog-standard mysticism, and probably worse because it lies to itself about its metaphysics, and this is what we all should be debunking…because the idea that man, the observer, is a direct function of those processes and forces he observes from his unique and distinct conscious frame of reference is rank folly, and simply cannot be defended rationally, which is why science interpreted this way becomes Scientism, which becomes a religion steeped old fashioned gnostic mysticism, which is nothing more than a death cult.

The fact is that the very truth and integrity of science rests upon an absolute distinction between the observer and the observed, as well as the basic, elementary logical understanding that the former simply cannot be a function of the latter. To assert otherwise is to obliterate both, and, most atrociously, reduce man to a mere thing, having no particular existential value at all, and dismissing his consciousness as nothing but an illusion at best, and more like an outright offense to reality, which obviously renders truth and morality as they pertain to man’s fundamental ability to actually, objectively posses them entirely moot. This is the stuff mass murder is made of…demonic.

By the way, if we follow the logic of the claim that “consciousness is an illusion” to its necessary conclusion, we realize that this means that man’s very ability to perceive anything at all, and certainly anything objective, is entirely absent from his nature according to the “science”. Man’s very epistemological and ethical frame of reference is fake…so of course he cannot perceive anything real. In which case, how can he actually know anything?

He can’t. Which is why he is implored again and again by his clueless and/or complicit leaders to “trust the science”…by which they mean “trust the divinely enlightened priests of Scientism’ because only they have been given the “grace to perceive” in the utterly gnostic sense.

Needless to say (or is it?) that what follows from this half-baked ideology is the rise of the tyrant-class—the “special”, “uniquely enlightened”, “divinely appointed”, “bred-better” philosopher kings, who by some religious magic have gained absolution for their own failed, illusory consciousnesses. These people have been appointed by the gods to compel the great, unwashed, unconscious masses into “right behavior” by violence and threats of violence, often manifest in the State, whereupon the masses are inevitably and summarily dashed against the rocks of what amounts to nothing more than the hedonistic whims of their “leaders”. This is where Scientism, like all cults, goes in the end.


As stated, the very rationality and truth of science rests upon a necessary a-priori distinction between the observer and what he observes; between the mere perception of the senses and the singular self of the consciousness; between objects and the nature of objects; between mere description and value, or meaning; between science and philosophy. In other words, science cannot describe a metaphysic—a metaphysic must already be assumed before any science is actually possible; and that metaphysic is, again, the basic distinction between the observer and the observed. Once that is wrecked, there is no science, there is only a religion. And a stupid one at that.

No Christian, nor any other spiritual person, should ever feel threatened by criticism coming from anyone claiming science as a means of disproving or casting reasonable doubt upon the existence of God or any other spiritual matter. Science has nothing to say about metaphysics nor ethics, and without these things, no effective argument against any religion or religious idea is possible. Advocates of “scientific truth” as a means of dismantling religious and other philosophical ideas, in order to get at the “objective truth” of man and creation, become the witting or unwitting evangelizers of their own religious dogma; and their method of arguing their own metaphysical assumptions is to simply pretend that they don’t have any. The intellectual fraud and hypocrisy is shocking…and even more shocking is the fact that most of the time the disciples of scientism don’t even notice. They really do think they are being objective. Embarrassing.

Do yourself a favor—embrace science, but reject scientific mysticism, or Scientism. Science doesn’t make for much of a philosophy…unless violent, nihilistic, death-worshiping, dysgenic philosophy is what you’re after.

Then it’s the crown jewel.


The Evolutionary Process as a Line, Ray, or Line Segment, in any version—It’s all Nonsense

In the last article, I explained why evolution, itself, outside of the context of the purely conceptual (that is, the context of man’s mind) as an objectively existent, distinct, causal, creative force in the universe, is impossible, as this kind of ontological description of evolution ironically contradicts its objective manifestation in the objects it is said to “guide” and “govern”. For summary’s sake, the basic premise of my argument in the last article is:

a.) Evolution, itself (evolution qua evolution), if we accept it as objective and distinct, is the absolute source—the cause—of all stages of evolution manifest in objects.

b.) All stages of evolution, in order to be called “objective”, must be referenced to evolution qua evolution, as evolution, itself, is the only possible objective constant by which to identify various stages of evolution as objectively true…that is, as objective manifestations of evolution (as objectively evolving).

c.) Evolution, itself, does not evolve, because evolution cannot both be the source of evolution and a product of evolution, because this is a contradiction of both. (This is the same sort of logical fallacy as the Objectivist claim that “existence exists”—which, no, because the metaphysical primary cannot also be a function of the metaphysical primary…this is a null assertion. Existence cannot also be a thing upon which existence acts; evolution cannot also be a thing upon which evolution acts.)

d.) All evolutionary stages are equal expressions/manifestations of the absolute, non-evolving evolutionary constant (the evolutionary cause), which is evolution, itself.

e.) Therefore there are no actual, objective stages of evolution possible between objects. Any differences in evolutionary stages are merely the relative perceptions of the conscious observer, making them purely subjective, and purely conceptual.


In this article, I would like to examine the nature of the evolutionary process, itself, not necessarily related to the objects it is said to “objectively” act upon, guide, and govern.

Let’s assume that the evolutionary process—or simply “evolution” as I might refer to it—is a literal thing; it exists distinctly, objectively, completely outside the mind of man. It’s a thing and it is there…wherever “there” is for something we can only ever observe indirectly, as its nature demands.

Well, what kind of thing is it? I mean, we know its a process, but what do we mean by process? Is it a line…is it a continuum that goes on forever and ever, without beginning and end? Is it a ray…does it have a beginning but no end; an end but no beginning? Does it have a beginning and an end…that is, is it a line segment?

In this article I will explain why evolution can, in fact, be none of these things, nor any conceivable iteration of them. Therefore, it cannot be a process at all—except conceptually—which further nullifies the idea of evolution existing outside of man’s mind—man’s conscious conceptual framework.


Let’s consider the process of evolution as a ray. It starts at a point—the beginning—and extends infinitely. It is a beginning with no end. We could also assert an “end with no beginning”, but that’s redundant, being the “same difference”, and unnecessarily confusing.

So as a ray, evolution has an origin point (e.g. the Big Bang)…it starts at a place of non-evolution…and this is important. There is no evolutionary process, then it begins. We could say evolution is “dormant”, or it is “potential evolution” at this point; but regardless of how we describe it, the beginning of evolution is, in effect, NON-evolution…at the beginning, evolution, we could say, is “not evolving” (and thus, not evolving any thing). Here, evolution is not actually being that which it is—it is a process that is not actually proceeding. Then, abracadabra! it springs into action. The evolutionary process pops into procession, we could say; but here, of course, in the manner of a ray, the action, or more precisely, the process, never ends. From the beginning it just keeps on going and going, forever.

Now, from this we can see that any given point along the process of evolution is as far away from the “end” of evolution as any other. Every point along the evolutionary process is infinitely far away (or infinitely near…same difference) from the conclusion of the process…because, of course there is no conclusion. Evolution as a ray is perpetual, proceeding from the beginning (the place of non-evolution) to, well…ad infinitum…thus all stages of evolution share an equal distance from the “end” of evolution. In other words, all stages or states of evolution are infinitely away from being “fully evolved”, regardless of their proximity to the beginning. In other words, if evolution is a ray, then all objects which are said to be evolving are not actually evolving to anything or anywhere, in which case they are all simply regurgitations of the beginning of the evolutionary process, which, as I said above, is non-evolution, or the absence of evolution. Evolution starts at a place of non-evolution, and proceeds infinitely to nowhere, making the evolutionary process a self-nullifying contradiction…circular and redundant, because it means that ultimately, and fundamentally, there is no difference between an object evolving and NOT evolving; between evolution and NO evolution, or NULL evolution. Embarking on a journey with no end is redundant…that is, it is the same as not taking the journey at all. A journey with no end can only be referenced to the point of origin—the place where the “journey” begins…which is the place where there is no journey.

If every step along the way of the evolutionary process is infinitely away from the “end of evolution”, because there is no end, because evolution is a ray, then no object under the influence of the evolutionary process is actually proceeding anywhere. Which means, of course, that there is no process at all. All points, or stages, or states, of evolution can only be referenced back to the very beginning, before evolution began. Thus all evolutionary points/stages/states, if we say they exist at all, are ultimately relative to the observer; and, since science—more precisely, scientistic metaphysics—declares the observer’s observation, meaning his conscious frame of reference, meaning his consciousness, entirely subjective, then any evolutionary distinctions the observer perceives are necessarily relative and subjective only, never objective; and thus never actual.

So, evolution is not a ray.


If evolution cannot be a ray, perhaps it is a line. It is an infinite, perpetual process, with neither beginning nor end. It’s a continuum that just goes on and on, outward (or inward, same difference), ad infinitum. Well, in this case it is easy to see the completely redundant nature of evolution. In this scenario, every stage/state in the process of evolution is an equal unit of infinity; evolving from nowhere, to nowhere, and thus, the process itself is entirely meaningless. No state of evolution can have any objective value because it is referenced to infinity…which means it is referenced to, by definition, a non-specifiable infinite “constant”, which means that no stage of evolution can ever be specifically defined as an objective manifestation of evolution. Further, within an infinite “process” of evolution, nothing is, again, actually proceeding to anywhere from anywhere, and thus evolution does not meet any rational definition of a “process” and thus cannot be in any rational sense evolutionary. This makes evolution as a line entirely redundant and self-contradicting.

So evolution is not a line.


Well, if evolution cannot be a line or a ray, maybe it’s a line segment. It has two definite points—a beginning from which it proceeds, to an end at which it terminates; a beginning where the evolutionary process is not proceeding…it is only “potential” evolution, (which really means non, or null, evolution), and an end where the evolutionary process ceases to proceed…it is “completed”, which likewise means non, or null, evolution. The evolutionary process as a line thus proceeds from NO evolution to NO evolution.

Hm…I’m sensing a problem here.

In the case of a line segment, the evolutionary process has a definite beginning and end; it is finite…it begins at a place of perfect non-evolution, and proceeds to a place of perfectly complete/completed evolution—the end of evolution, where evolution is perfectly realized to a point where it is no longer evolving.

Hm…the logic is dodgy.

In the example of evolution as a line segment, at any location along the evolutionary process any given object is in a contradictory state of simultaneous evolutionary progression and evolutionary regression. You see, the terminus of evolution is at root simply a regurgitation of the origin—that is, fundamentally, a place of non evolution. In other words, the fundamental point of evolution as a line segment is to not evolve—to come to an end of itself. It goes from the beginning, which is a place of non-evolution, to the end, which is likewise a place of non-evolution. Evolution thus proceeds as a manner of regression. The process then, you see, is entirely redundant—pointless. Any object’s stage of evolution is simultaneously a stage of that object’s de-evolution, which means that the object is both evolving and not evolving at the same time. The redundancy of evolution as a line segment is manifest in the object’s perpetual state of evolutionary contradiction.

Now, to the conscious observer—which, again, scientistic metaphysics deems an entirely subjective frame of reference—objects may appear more or less evolved depending on the state in which they are observed, but evolution is presented to us by the scientific community as having an objective ontology fundamentally outside of man’s subjective conscious, conceptual framework. In this article we are considering evolution as science presents it to us—a distinct, existent, immutable component of Reality, itself…and even more than that, as that which guides, governs, causes, and creates Reality, having its own form and function…this is its “objective” existence. In this sense then, it simply doesn’t matter what the observer perceives. What he perceives is subjective only; evolution IS…it is the objective truth, outside of man’s mind. This is TRUE evolution—evolution, itself—evolution qua evolution.

Well, unfortunately, this kind of evolution—non-conceptual evolution—is complete nonsense..

Evolution as an “objective process” is simply a categorically false assertion. This “objective process” must manifest as a line, ray, or line segment at root, regardless of how science may attempt to obscure these inexorable fundamental forms with sophistic alterations and/or silly, arcane hypotheticals. The evolutionary process as “objectively true” line, ray, or line segment, in any form that scientists, or anyone else, may proscribe or envision, is perfectly irrational.


Evolution is Only a Product of Man’s Mind; it is Neither Causal nor Creative

Let us think of evolution in its scientifically accepted terms, where evolution is an objective ontological force which causes and creates, governs and guides objects hither and thither along their existential timelines. Let us think of evolution as an actual thing—objective, distinct, and wholly outside of man’s consciousness. Let us imagine that it possesses its own unique essence. Let us imagine that evolution is not a product of human consciousness but the other way around.

And let us never mind that defining a “process” (or “force”, such as gravity) as being distinct, objective, and possessing its own essence is fraught with rational errors…because a process qua process, like a force qua force, can never be directly observed. Which means that empirically it possesses no existential distinction—it is made manifest only via something else. It possesses no independent ontological value…no meaning or relevance on its own, removed from the objects it is said to guide and govern. Which makes it merely a relative expression of those objects—how object A is observed relative to object B; how object X is observed relative to object.Y, and so on. Which makes its existence purely subjective—subject to the objects it “guides” and “governs”—which means it, itself, does not objectively exist at all.


Evolution qua evolution can never be directly observed; its “objective” existence which is “outside of man’s consciousness” can only be validated implicitly, which makes describing it in such terms, or even implying that this is its nature, a very curious approach to say the least. It’s more than a little ironic to claim that evolution objectively exists outside of man’s consciousness whilst evolution’s existential relevance requires man’s conscious ability to create meaning beyond what his senses merely deliver. So yes, let us ignore the rational errors inherent to claims of “objectivity” with regards to evolution. Let us pretend that all of the rational errors made by evolutionary apologists who conflate science with philosophy and vice versa can be waved away with a magic scientistic wand, and that, despite all logical and rational evidence to the contrary, evolution is indeed its own distinct thing.

In this case, then, my argument is that evolution, when considered as something existing beyond the confines of man’s mind—beyond the purely conceptual—is wholly redundant and thus wholly irrelevant, and thus cannot actually exist and, of course, has no actual causal nor creative power.

I will break down my argument in parts.

Forgive me, but I must warn you that this could get a little confusing—-not because you will necessarily have trouble understanding the material, but because of my poor writing. I’m aware that my scatterbrained, disorganized writing style is a problem…I’m just not aware of how to fix it yet. Apologies…to you and to myself. Anyway, here we go:

1. No object can evolve beyond the boundaries of evolution—this is a contradiction. The snake cannot outgrow the confines of its terrarium, so to speak. This means that no matter the degree to which a given object evolves, it’s evolutionary stage (the degree to which it has evolved) is always a manifestation of the law of evolution—the source of the process—which, among other laws, is said to govern reality; and since evolution is immutable and constant, and thus absolute, all manifestations of evolution are full manifestations of evolution—that is, an object in any given stage of evolution is manifesting evolution utterly so.

In other words. from the frame of reference of evolution, the root source of the evolutionary process, and the only objective evolutionary reference—the evolutionary constant—all stages of evolution are absolute expressions of evolution. Following the logic, we see that all objects are thus already fully evolved as far as evolution is concerned. Evolutionary stages then are perfectly redundant, objectively speaking, reflecting evolution back to evolution; so really, the entire evolutionary process is merely evolution circling back onto itself. As far as evolution is concerned, no evolution outside of itself ever objectively occurs, All stages of evolution fundamentally imply the singular immutable source, as they are direct functions of it, and thus all stages of evolution imply the fullness of evolution.


To recap: The objective source—the root cause—of all evolutionary stages is evolution, itself, which is the evolutionary constant because it is immutable—that is, it does not itself evolve (because this is a contradiction); and evolutionary stages are only objective when they are referenced to the constant.

Now, are you ready for this?

Given everything above, we can see that all stages of evolution then are at root expressions of non-evolution.

Let that little bit of irony sink in.

Evolutionary stages are objectively referenced to what amounts to the fundamental absence of evolution—which is evolution, itself, because evolution does not evolve. Evolutionary stages then of course can only be purely subjective, never objective.

I hope that makes sense. Evolution, you see, is the singular constant from which all stages of evolution equally proceed, making all stages equal expressions of evolution. This means that from the objective frame of reference of evolution, no object has actually evolved more than any other object; and further it means that evolution hasn’t objectively taken place, because as far as evolution is concerned, all stages are utter expressions of itself; all stages mean simply “evolution”. In other words, there is no distinction between evolution and its expression in a given evolutionary stage. Distinctions between evolutionary stages only exist relatively—between objects which are said to be evolving; and this only when the observer conceptually uncouples the stages from the constant—from evolution. This makes every claim that a given object is actually evolving (or has evolved) purely a subjective claim, not an objective one. Such a claim is always and only relative to something other than the objective constant—evolution. (This “other” is, I submit, the observer.) Thus, there are no objective evolutionary distinctions, only subjective ones.

So, is evolution objectively occurring, then?

Obviously not. If we accept that evolution is a distinct, immutable, governing force of reality itself, then no, there is no such objective thing as evolutionary stages, or an evolutionary process, and therefore no such thing as evolution, period. It is only the observer perceiving and conceptualizing certain unique relative distinctions between objects in the environment he perceives. Evolution only finds any meaning when inside the consciousness of man. It is entirely conceptual.

Wrapping up this section, I refer you to the following summarizing points: That nothing can evolve beyond evolution, itself; evolution, itself, cannot evolve—it is immutable and absolute (it cannot be subject to itself…this is a contradiction of evolution); evolution, itself, is the constant to which any stage of evolution must be referenced if the stage is to be considered objective, because evolution, being immutable, is the only objective reference possible; thus no such objective stages of evolution exist since all of them are equal and categorical expressions of evolution. Evolutionary stages—comprising the evolutionary process—are purely subjective…and further, are entirely conceptual, which means entirely a function of man’s consciousness. In short, if evolution is the non-evolving constant from which proceeds all stages and states of evolution, then all stages and states are equal and full expressions of evolution, making evolutionary distinctions between objects purely relative, and thus purely subjective, and thus no object at any given moment is objectively evolving, making evolution entirely circular, redundant, and self-contradicting. Evolution is either a concept in the observer’s (man’s) mind which he uses to describe and organize his environment and his place in it, or it is nonsense.

Finally, to summarize the entirely of my argument in one relatively simple question: From the frame of reference of evolution, itself, which is the objective non-evolving constant from which evolutionary stages proceed, what stage of any given object’s evolutionary journey expresses evolution more so or less so than any other stage?

The answer to that question is precisely why there is no such thing as evolution…at least, no such thing outside of the conceptual realm of man’s consciousness.

END part One