When Ethics Don’t Exist, There is No Such Thing as “Preferential Behavior” (Part 2)

By removing man’s consciousness from the metaphysical equation, which the metaphysical primary of Existence most certainly does, we remove the singular conscious Self from man. And the conscious Self is the means by which man is able to assert that he IS, and by this is able to say what he IS NOT—he is able to make the distinction between himself and his environment, and this is the fundamental definition of Reality, period. Any other definition, and any other reference, is utterly beyond him…he cannot possibly know it. Therefore, by removing consciousness from metaphysics, man’s ability to define his environment and himself is fundamentally removed. And this of course makes it impossible for him to claim any real epistemological understanding (truth from falsehood), and lacking epistemological understanding he necessarily lacks ethical understanding (good from evil), because epistemology and ethics are of course corollary. The metaphysical primary of Existence then ironically removes man from Existence, placing it utterly outside of him, beyond his consciousness, and thus beyond his categorical frame of reference. In which case, man can claim to apprehend no actual ethics, because ethics, like epistemology, are a function of metaphysics…the metaphysics of Existence. And this is the root of the claim that “universal ethics do not exist”. As far as man is concerned, ethics are impossible for him, because his consiousness, being utterly subjective, being exclusive of Existence, is exclusive of not only universal ethics but anything universal at all…be it ethics, or truth, or reality on the whole. Because universality in the philosophical sense, and in the practical sense, is simply another word for objectivity. So the claim “universal ethics do not exist” can be rendered—and more precisely rendered—“objective ethics do not exist”. From this we can follow the logical progression to the claim “objective ethical behavior does not exist”. And this being the case, the idea that it is possible for man to act in a “universally preferable” way is irrational and pointless. Without universal ethics, there can be no standard for universally preferable ethics, because to say that there are no universal ethics is really to say that there are no actual ethics at all. And there can be no such thing as a preference which is rooted in that which does not actually exist in the first place. It’s an infinitely subjective preference, in other words…which makes it merely an opinion, full stop…akin to having a favorite color.

Universally preferable behavior. Well…what is actually preferable? Nothing. Because universal ethical behavior—behavior which is right as opposed to that which is wrong—cannot objectively be defined; it isn’t a thing. Man’s consciousness is removed from reality; man’s consciousness, specifically his conscious Self, is his sole frame of reference for anything which is real and thus true and thus good. And as goes the reference so goes ethics. As goes ethics so goes behavior. As goes behavior, so goes preferential behavior.

Ethics doen’t exist because You qua You don’t exist, and so your behavior doesn’t exist, which means there is no behavior to be preferred. Universal or otherwise.

Holding onto fundamentally untenable and irrational metaphysics (like those of Existence) will lead one down the wrong ethical path all the time, every time.

END

When Ethics Don’t Exist, There is No Such Thing as “Preferential Behavior” (Part 1)

A couple of months ago I heard a relatively well-known YouTuber who discusses philosophy from time to time make the claim that “universal ethics don’t exist”. He said this in a video in which he was arguing for the legitimacy and efficacy of something he calls, rather oxymoronically, ironically, and paradoxically, “Universally Preferable Behavior”.

What he means by “universal ethics don’t exist” is that ethics are purely a function of human consciousness, and, by infrerences one can make about his beliefs based upon past assertions, and even open admission, he presumes that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, and this implies that it is fundamentally irrelevant to Reality qua Reality. In other words, the only rational and possible  frame of reference for ethics, both explicitly and implicitly—the individual, the conscious Self, the Thinking Human Being—is completely subjective with respect to Reality and thus Existence (the two are corollary). And if the reference for ethics is completely subjective, and this fundametally so, then ethical behavior is completely subjective. Which means that Universally Preferable Behavior, being a form of ethical expression—ethics, which are again utterly subjective, because they don’t actually exist, (that is, not universally, and by this he means means objectively)—can only ever be subjectively universally preferable.  Which is of course a contradiction in terms.

This person’s root problem, as is the case with…well, everyone who makes an irrational assertion about, well, anything, is the metaphysics.

Boy, those metaphysics are certainly quite wily it seems….they are the rocks upon which everyone’s philosophical ship ignominiously crashes in the end. From Aristotle to Augustine, Kant to Jordan Peterson…you’ll find their flotsam washing up on shore from time to time leaving graceless little trails of “not quite” upon the sand.

*

Whenever it is asserted that ethics do not actually exist, it is meant that they are nothing but a figment of man’s imagination, and this a product of man’s consciousness, which is itself considered merely a figment…anathema to Existence. Consciousness, being the source of the utterly conceptual, is itself completely abstract, perfectly ethereal…so it is assumed and asserted. It, like the concepts it inexorably and necessarily spawns, is entirely intangible, and Existence, as the metaphysical primary, demands that only the tangible, the empirical, the physical, the ontic actually are, in any fundamentally objective (which means “meaningful; relevant”) sense. Ethics are not real—they do not exist—because they are exclusive of the senses, and Existence has no frame of reference as a metaphyscial primary for what happens after those concrete things which can be sensed have been sensed. In other words, the application of what is “real”, as Existence defines it, by a conscious frame of reference is irrelevant to Existence. Never mind the unavoidable fact that consciousness is the only means by which meaning can be generated…that Reality can be interpreted and applied.  Existence as the metaphysical primary thus makes its own epistemology and ethics merely folderol…utterly subjective, and utterly inconsequential to the very metaphysical primary from which they are derived. Astounding. If sensing is entirely immaterial and fundamentally irrelevant to Existence—to that which actually exists—because it is inexorably bound to the conscious observer by which it gets the whole of its meaning and purpose, then sensing, itself, is incompatible with Existence…sensing does not actually exist. And thus, how can it be claimed that anything actually exists, since no one can actually see (or otherwise sense) Reality and the things in it, because their senses, being linked inexorably to their consciousness in order that what is sensed can be defined and thus said to actually exist (as this or that), are utterly subjective and fundamentally irrelevant to the metaphysics of Existence? And if it is impossible to sense that which exists, how can Existence itself be claimed to exist? And thus how can it be the metaphysical primary?

At any rate, I digress. Suffice to say that what this YouTube personality is essentially saying is that ethics are are a function of consciousness and thus not observable and thus do not actually exist  according to his metaphysics (Existence) and thus cannot be universal. Of course, this being the case, all he really does in the end is make an implicit argument for the utter rejection of any ethical propositions he might make, and from that the utter rejection of the sum and substance of his philosophy on the whole.

END part 1

There is No Such Thing as “No Such Thing as Absolute Truth”

The claim that there is no such thing as absolute truth is, of course, a bald-faced self-nullifying contradiction. If there is no such thing as absolute truth then the assertion that there is no such thing as absolute truth cannot possibly be absolutely true. It could be true, one might argue, to which I would say: perhaps I will grant you that, however it’s only possible truth, and not absolute truth. It can be known, perhaps, but not known for certain. But…hang on…if absolute truth is not knowable for certain, then how can it be claimed that there is such a thing as absolute truth? It cannot. And thus we must assert that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But this assertion then cannot be absolutely true…and round and round we go. Wash. Rinse. Repeat, as the bottle directs us.

So much for the faux profundity of idiotic, what I call, Dorm Room Philosophy—philosophical neophytes sitting around over a bong or a four pack of artisan beer waxing on with ivy league pretension about shit that no one understands because it’s nothing but tarted up nonsense. Nonsense on her prom night.

Let’s get one thing straight: Contradiction is not deep thinking. It’s make believe. It’s mysticism. It’s a galaxy far far away. It’s not philosophy. It’s not wisdom, and it’s certainly not truth…of any kind.

Back to the flummery of “no such thing as absolute truth”.

If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then what is the point of language? Indeed, how is language even possible at all? If there is no such thing as absolute truth then of course there is no such thing as objective truth…or of objectivity at all. Which means that language can serve no objective purpose. And this being the case, language contradicts itself…it becomes self-nullifying. It can make no certain claim, about anything, and this is an extension of the fact that it is impossible for the user of language (the Observer) to actually know anything…because there is no objective truth, which is to say, following the logic, that there is no truth at allAnd if the user cannot really know anything then there is no fundamental point in any utterance, and thus communication is likewise pointless. Language then becomes categorically irrelvant at the most fundamental level. And that which is by nature irrelevant, based upon explicit,  endemic, necessary self-contradiction is indeed utterly impossible existentially. That is, you might say, as soon as it is manifest, it dissolves into non-being, because nothingness is the only thing it can “mean”.

And if language is impossible then so must be consciousness. For one cannot be self-aware…that is, one cannot know himself, cannot conceptualize himself and then name himself, if what he is is infinitely subjective, lacking any objectivity because truth itself is infinitely subjective and thus infinitely irrelevant. Impossible language is language which is infinitely subjective, which makes consciousness likewise subjective. But if consciousness only subjectively exists, and this fundamentally so, then consciousness, doesn’t actually (objectively) exist. Consciousness then is purely an illusion…which of course begs the question: an illusion of what? You see, from the frame of reference of he or that which is (or is said to be) conscious there is no difference between consciousness and the illusion of consciousness. Because how would he or it know the difference? How would you? How would you know the difference between he or that which is actually conscious and he or that which possesses only the illusion of consciousness? In order for you to claim that consciousness is only an illusion, you would have to know that the consciousness to which you refer is not in reality actual consciousness at all, but is in fact merely an illusion of consciousness. Which would imply that you have an objective frame of reference for actual consciousness, thus proving implicitly that there is, indeed, such a thing as actual, objective consciousness. And if there is such a thing as actual, objective conscioness, then there must be such a thing as objective language, which means there must be such a thing as objective truth. Or capital “T” Truth, we sometimes say. Which means there must be such a thing as absolute truth. And if there is such a thing as absolute truth then there is such a thing as absolute ethics (objective ethics) and absolute (objective) politics and absolute (objective) aesthetics. And pure reason (rationally consistent, utterly non-contradictory, thinking) is how you define them.

END

The God, Math: The religious dogma of science revealed through the “expanding universe” (Part TWO)

The Wikipedia article on the expanding universe, cited in part one of this article series, does not acknowledge the necessity of the observer to Reality, particularly with respect to movement, and ignores the distinction between movement qua movement and relative movement. Instead it appeals to the artifice of the metric tensor to explain how the universe does not actually expand, and that space and objects in space do not actually move, and yet it kinda does and they kinda do. I submit that science has become, in some fundamental way, the pseudo-philosophical, and albeit implied, art of rejecting the observer as entirely superfluous to Reality, Existence, and thus by extension, Truth and Ethics. But instead of simply admitting that science has no frame of reference for describing (the fundamental nature of) the observer, and thus conceding that he should be left to other schools of thought and other methodologies for his description, science functionally declares his “objective” non-existence as observer-qua-observer (or, better stated, his “ultimately non-efficacious existence”) an empirical fact, and this  because the observer is scientifically revealed to be so.

I am not entirely certain why science promotes this folderol…a focused and overt dissertation on the subject has never been submitted. Nevertheless, what is overt, and painfully obvious, is that science has no rationally consistent methodology for describing and explaining the observer. The observer lies completely beyond the scope of science, and for some reason this is unacceptable to the scientific community. Is it arrogance? Bullish pride? Who knows…but by rejecting the observer as purely ephemeral at best, it attempts to rectify the inrinsic contradictions this rejection of the observer necessitates…for example, that the universe is not expanding, and space and objects in space do not actually move, except that it kinda is and they kinda do. And the metric tensor is a perfect example of an artifice used to reconcile the contradiction.

“Technically, neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale.”  [Bold print added for emphasis]

A few problems with this…I will attempt to plot the inconsistencies as clearly and succinctly as possible.

Earlier, I stated that the claims that “neither space nor objects in space move”, and “the universe does not expand into anything, and does not require space to exist outside of it” are correct. However, it is important that I qualify my agreement as being in some way quite superficial; that is, my agreement terminates once a deeper examination of these claims in the context of the full Wikipedia quote commences (see the beginning of part one for the full quote). And unfortunately, the examination needs only be cursory.

While it is true that objects “in space” do not move, the article, as I have mentioned, fails to qualify the meaning of the word “move”. That is, it does not make the important distinction between movement qua movement, which certainly does not exist, because this is impossible in a vacuum, and relative movement, which certainly does. In a vacuum, object A, alone, does not move, because there is and can be no relevant, measurable, definable distinction between, say, A at position X and A at position Y. A is simply “in” the vacuum…there is no “where” then to its existence except itself, as it were. It just exists. It is A qua A. But if we add object B to the vacuum, then there is no longer the existence of A qua A, but also the relative existence of A to B. And now there can be a relevant, measurable, and definable distinction between A’s position at X and its position at Y—as relative to B. In this context then, A does in fact move, it’s simply that the movement is relative, not absolute. And the converse of this is also true—that B may move relative to A. Of course, it is the necessary role of the observer to determine which object, A or B, is to be the reference for the relative movement between the two. Is A revolving around B, for example, or is B revolving around A? That question can only be answered by the observer, because only the Self is constant.

Moving on.

While it is rightly stated that the universe does not expand into anything, it should, for clarity and veracity’s sake, be stated that, this being the case, the universe does not actually expand at all. Space, and its corollary, time, being non-existent outside of the universe, along with anything else, means that the universe simply exists relative to itself, so to speak…or in other words, non-relatively. Meaning that the universe simply “is what it is”. In actuality, “the universe” is simply a label we give to the sum and substance of Reality. The universe, thus,  is not a thing, so to speak, but an abstraction, and as such it holds no deeper meaning nor significance than as an abstract context for Reality. The expansion of the universe then is simply a way of describing a particular form of relative movement between certain objects man observes in his environment.

*

“It is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that actually changes in scale.”

Spacetime is an interesting concept, or phenomenon, you could say, I suppose, as it is presented to us by science. It is referred to in physics as being a “coordinate system”. But here in the Wikipedia article we see an implied distinction between the coordinate system, or the metric tensor, and spacetime.

So which is it? Is spacetime a coordinate system, or is the coordinate system distinct? Well, due to the intrinsic rational inconsistencies with the scientific conceptual perspective of spacetime, and being familiar with science’s penchant for excusing these inconsistencies by appealing to contradiction and then pretending that the contradiction is understood and appreciated by the “enlightened” few—that is, the mathematically and scientifically gifted, who today, ironically, comprise our postmodern priest class—I would say that  science most likely considers it both and neither.

Not that it matters to us really, for it is clear to the rational observer, who resists the scientific community’s determination to exceed the scope of its mathematical boundaries, that spacetime is purely a conceptual placeholder. That is, neither space nor time actually exist. The abstractions of “space” and “time” may be rendered as a mathematical coordinate system, but these are not object or empirical themselves—spacetime is not a thing to either be a coordinate system or revealed as or translated into a coordinate system. It is instead a product of man’s conceptualizing powers—a means by which man cognitively organizes certain objects in his environment.

Space is not a thing itself, it is by definition and by rational necessity the absence of things; you cannot have holes in space (e.g “worm holes”), for space is the hole. And objects do not exist in space…they simply exist. The whole point of space, the vacuum, is that it is not. And objects cannot exist in that which does not exist. And time, being a continuum, is likewise a conceptual abstraction—a product of man’s mind; a product of the conscious observer. Time is and must necessarily be a continuum, for time can have no beginning or end, it is the beginning and the end. Time can have no future or past or present, it is the future, past, and present. Time, in other words, is an infinitely linear conceptual construct which is divided into mutually exclusive units of past, present, and future, which are qualified and quantified for practical application. Spacetime, then, at its fundamental root is the abstract conceptual environment in which all empirical/material objects are said to exist at the irreducible physical level. Nothing more. The metric tensor, or the coordinate system, which physics declares the corollary existential, even ontic I would argue, manifestation of spacetime, is simply another abstract quantification of it.

Naturally science disagrees with this…the metric is no mere abstraction, you see, but a god of sorts. It has causality, and its causality is authoritative; and being mathematical and thus predictable, is determinative; and being determinative is absolute—omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Do not take the assertion that the metric “governs” the size and geometry of spacetime as some unimportant thing, its deeper implications to be glossed over as unimportant or pat. The metric governs—it commands, it controls. It acts and the universe inexorably follows suit. It declares what is to be done and the universe obeys. The universe does not itself expand, and objects and spacetime do not move, and yet the metric changes in scale, and so it does and so they do. They do not, and yet through the mysterious omnipotence of the math, they do. The contradiction, though a contradiction, is nevertheless true, and is a testament to the power of god. He who has ears, let him hear. The power of god is wiser than man…man cannot comprehend it. For man’s reason has no frame of reference, no means of apprehending or processing an IS which is simultaneously and IS NOT. Man, the priests of science declare, must accept such truths on faith alone. Math is god; and he doesn’t need your acceding or your concession to validate his truth.

The universe is merely an extension of god, who created all things ex nihilo…from nothing. And god is the metric tensor; the math. The math is infinite…changing into itself; expanding into its own infinity. So the numbers change, but they don’t, because the numbers go on forever. There is no beginning nor end; the difference in the scale of the metric is the difference in degrees of infinity, which of course is no difference at all. The universe expands, but it doesn’t; objects in space move, but they don’t. The universe, objects, spacetime…they all exist, but they don’t. But how is this possible? Because the god of science declares it so.

The intellectual disagreements between religion science, it seems, boil down to little more than debates about whose god can beat up the other.

END

The God, Math: The religious dogma of science revealed through the “expanding universe” (Part ONE)

Accepting that the idea of the expansion of the universe is a phenomenon considered relatively well-understood and axiomatic by the scientific community, and perhaps in general, let’s assume Wikipedia to be a credible citation for summarizing expansion:

“The expansion of the universe is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand “into” anything and does not require space to exist “outside” it. Technically neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale.”

Focus for a moment on this section: “…it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself…”

How does Wikipedia define “metric”?

”In general relativity, the metric tensor…may be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential of Newtonian gravitation.”

“And if we look up the word “tensor” we are told that this is a:

”…mathematical object anologous to but more general than a vector, represented by an array of components that are functions of the coordinates of space.” 

In other words, what science, particularly physics, is telling us is that the only thing which is active, and thus existing (where existence to be efficacious must be active, not passive…for existence which does not “do” is not actually existing) is the mathematical coordinate system. All else then, is passive. All else except the metric tensor does not do; does not move; does not act. Thus, existentially speaking, it is purely illusory. Reality is, in true essence, a set of infinite abstract placeholders which somehow the mathematically-inclined observer may apprehend and define, even though he, himself, is not actually there.

This may seem like quite a large leap of logic. How does one arrive at such a philosophical conclusion from a purely academic monograph on tensors, vectors, geometry, and spacetime?

I’ll explain.

*

I was somewhat surprised to see the Wikipedia article on the expansion of the universe admit that the universe cannot and does not actually expand into anything. I was further surprised to see it admitted that neither space nor objects in space actually move. Accepting the logic of the relativity of movement in a vacuum, the conclusion that there is no movement qua movement (non-relative movement) would seem quite self-evident, yet I’ve never seen it admitted by science. Perhaps I’ve just not been hanging around the right circles and source material.

At any rate, both the claim that the universe does not actually expand (expansion qua expansion) and that space and objects in space do not actually move (movement qua movement) are of course completely true. Perhaps the reason for my surprise at seeing them admitted in a science article is that such claims are more a metaphysical acknowledgment than a physical one. They require a certain meta analysis of the universe qua the universe, rather than the universe as experienced relative to the observer. The former is falls more within the scope of philosophy, the latter, physics. This of course is fine, there is nothing wrong with anyone citing a fact, it’s just that I’ve grown more accustomed to science hijacking philosophy and then promptly mangling it like a toddler on a jelly sandwich instead of actually accepting its distinct truth.

Unfortunately, no sooner does the article make the (albeit implied) important and complex distinction between physics and metaphysics, when this distinction is almost immediately obliterated, with science once again hijacking philosophy and handling it like a monkey handles a clarinet.

What this article implies is that all of reality is boiled down to a mathematical artifice…a McGuffin, you could call it. You see, to bridge the gap between metaphysics and physics, a bridge which is recognized by the declaration that the universe doesn’t actually expand (that is, it doesn’t expand into anything…and by this we can extrapolate the logical assertion thus that the universe doesn’t actually expand at all) and that space nor objects in space actually move, science submits a purely abstract, purely cognitively manifested contrivance of an infinite set of specifically structured numerical and symbolic placeholders. It replaces the whole of efficacious (active, and thus, existent) reality with this set, which of course has the effect, intended or unintended (it doesn’t matter), of punting the entire real field of metaphysics and all of philosophy with it into the endless abyss of mysticism.

And even more egregious is the fact that the irony is completely lost on those atheists who appeal to science as proof of the rationality of dismissing God and the notion of God altogether. Because only fools believe in the fairy tale of the “magic man in the sky”, whilst the rational objectivists and sane empiricists can see that clearly all things are created and controlled instead by an invisible, yet omnipotent, omniscient, and ominipresent mathematical coordinate system summing all things to infinity on infinity.

If that’s not psychological projection then I don’t know what is.

*

Movement, you see, doesn’t exist…that is, the article tells us that the universe does not expand, and that space and objects in space do not move, but instead it is the “metric” which changes in scale”.

Except of course, that there is movement. The concept of movement is not irrational; actual movement does happen…the idea is efficacious; action occurs. It only needs to be qualified that movement is relative. An observer needs to be part of the equation in order to provide a reference for the relationship between two or more objects in a vacuum…because the observer—the Awareness of Self (the “I” of Self)—provides the (only rational) constant for object relationship in a vacuum. Once the observer is present to declare that, for example, “X shall revolve around Y” or “Y shall revolve around X”, then movement can be objectively defined, said to exist, and this efficaciously and actually so, and then mathematically measured. Mathematics are a conclusion, or an effect, not a cause, you see.

But science doesn’t accept the rationality and actuality of the observer. Because it has long ago confused and conflated mathematical truth with philosophical truth, it has relegated the observer to at best an undefinable and ultimately irrelvant epiphenomenon, inconsistent and incompatible with reality, because reality is to be wholly defined scientifically, which is to say mathematically.

Movement, even relative movement, is jettisoned and replaced with a metric which “changes in scale”, which is not movement at all, really , but merely the predetermined “evolution” of an infinite numerical and symbolic mathematical data set. And thus, since nothing actually moves, up to and including the universe, the existence of such is entirely passive, which means that its “existence” doesn’t actually exist. Because if existence doesn’t mean existing, then there is no such thing as existence in the first place. The universe, and all in it, and thus you and me of course, aren’t actually there. There is no observer. And thus there is no constant for movement. All is just an infinite data set which reveals a particular sum at a particular predetermined rate at a particular predetermined time…and all of these particulars are merely illusory, too, for the data set is, again, infinite. Thus, all units of data are merely units of infinity, which renders them ultimately impossible to define. So the grand answer to the cosmic question of life and existence and reality and truth and everything can be summed up by science as merely the  conclusion that “infinity equals infinity”. And, I mean, I don’t even know what you’d call this. It’s some kind of grand atrocity of nihilistic intellectual error, to be sure, but if there is a name for it which illustrates appropriately its level of debasement of all morality and meaning, I don’t know what it is. I couldn’t begin to conjure one up, it’s that bad.

END part ONE

Rights are a Slavemaster

There is no such thing as rights. As George Carlin once said—“We made them up. Like the boogie man.” There is only Truth and Death…and I define Death as anything which denies the Truth; and I define Truth as the whole of ideas which do not contain or imply contradiction.

But that’s a separate issue.

For now, let’s just say that, speaking of rights, for example, mankind must freely associate or it must die. Man’s singular “I”, or “Self”—his absolute awareness of an utterly singular existential frame of reference—implies an incompatibility with forced ethics, and “forced ethics” means Law. And authoritarian-compelled restricting and compelling association is a cornerstone of Law, despite what the ideals of western democracies might tell us. Under law, then, man is made a slave. And slavery will destroy the Individual because it demands that the Singular Self commit itself to a frame of reference outside itself—to an external will, or “Authority”, which it cannot possibly do because it is, itself, the Singular frame of reference for Reality and Existence. The Self, then—man, the Individual—will thus necessarily be crushed to dust by Law, as punishment for inherent disobedience or as a product of Its own futile attempt to obey, where obedience is impossible because it requires a denial of Self, which the Self cannot do because, again, it is absolute.

In an ultimately pointless and vain attempt to mitigate the Law’s fatal flaw, “rights” are employed as a political solution. In other words, “rights” are a function of the Law, not the other way around, as most of us assume. Despite the perhaps benevolent intentions of rulers, rights are merely a transfer of the indiviudal’s existential political-moral status and station in Reality as a general, categorical, natural principle of his life to the State. The State, being the Authority over man, must then define man’s rights for him; and having defined them, must thus dictate them. And “dictated rights” is one of the head-scratching oxymorons which nevertheless implicitly forms the backbone of all “enlightened” democracies. Since the State by definition has Authority over man, because it is Authority by definition, being the practical incarnation and motivation of the Collective Ideal (e.g. the People), it will necessarily then have Authority over all of man’s “natural rights” which are said to be a function of his existence. It is a noble attempt at merging individual freedom and collectivist sociology , but clearly this cannot work. Man outsources his rights to the State, which exists to govern man. It governs man because he is, by nature, incapable of governing himself, as an individual, pursuing moral living via his individual will and choice alone. Man as an individual is depraved…societies functioning thus by strictly voluntary association with no central authority to compel behavior must then collapse into exploitation, chaos, and death. Because of this inherent natural depravity—the inability to manifest a moral society through the will alone, without Law—whatever good man can “possess” must be dictated to him by the Authority in spite of himself. His “natural rights” then are whatever the State decides they should be at any given moment. To claim that man, who is not good in and of himself, which is why he must have government to compel his behavior, has an inherent morality which implies rights which should be safeguarded in order that he not become a victim of government tyranny is a complete contradiction in terms.

To put it frankly, rights are nothing more than a form of political expediency. Man, being depraved in nature, has no individual rights. Further, the concept of “natural human rights” implies that man should possess some form of existential autonomy. But that autonomy is incompatible with the State, which exists specifically to compel man’s behavior against his will. So by what logic do we say that the State can possibly recognize an individual’s rights?

To square this circle:

The State defines man’s rights for man; and since the State is Authority, these rights are therefore entirely dictated by the State, making them in practice, if not also in theory, a direct consequence of the State, and not of man’s own natural existence. And notice how everyone in society who is clamoring for this right or that at any given moment is concordantly demanding that it be enforced—canonized by Law, and thus thrust into the category of “that which shall be obeyed or forfeit your life”. Rights and government violence are not only politically hand-in-hand, they are undeniably corollary.

“Rights”, therefore, far from being a marker of a benevolent State safeguarding and championing the cause of individual liberty, is merely a digestif given to the people to make government tyranny easier to absorb. And the irony should not be lost on us that that which claims it exists to uphold and secure our “natural rights” is that which cannot exist without completetely dismissing them.

Property rights? Taxes obliterate the very notion.

Speech rights; rights of association; privacy? I am not permitted to reject the Authority of the ruling class…I am bound by the coercive, legal obligation to obey the outcome of the vote, no matter how unjust or stupid or pointless or irrational it may be, otherwise I forfeit my life…thus all my “rights” to speech, privacy, association, property are subordinated to the governed (coerced) society at all times and in all circumstances. I am a slave to the Collective Ideal forced upon me by the Agency of Violence known as the State. I have no individual rights as far as it is concerned, because I, myself, do not exist and do not matter as far as it is concerned.

This is not hyperbole…it is not a screed or a conspiracy theory or some hypothetical injustice. This is what the metaphysics—the fundamental philosophical primaries—necessitate. There is only an immutable, inexorable, inevitable, and immediate consequence of the organization of society, and by extension Reality on the whole, under the umbrella of institutionalized Authority: the marginalization and suppression of the Individual.

The concept of “rights” is merely  politcal bromide…lubricating us up to smooth the application of tyranny.

The very fact that in the “enlightened” American democracy we need to insert “rights” as a hedge against what the Founding Father’s admitted was inherent government tyranny illustrates the inherent evil of government. And from this we can extrapolate the futility of rights. Because government is Authority and Authority is force, and Authoritative force is manifest by the supremacy of violent power, rights cannot possibly serve as a hedge against excessive government power. Also, there is no such thing as an excess of power from that which exists, fundamentally, to wield power absolutely.

And here we therefore must ask the obvious question begged:

Without government what need is there of rights? My objective existence, objectively as an individual, is why I am free. Your individuality is why you are free. Government can only serve to nullify that freedom, then, not manifest it. When we consider reality from the perfectly rational, morally perfect frame of reference of individualist metaphysics, then freedom is a metaphysical fact, not a right.

Finally, we say that rights exist as a necessary hedge against government, and this because government, being Authority in essence, is tyrannical by nature. Therefore, think about this: Since government is the monopoly of coercive force, which is legal violence, and legality (as opposed to morality) is the ethical plumbline of societies which are governed by institutionalized Authority, then rights cannot possibly serve the purpose for which they are ostensibly intended. That is, rights do not, and cannot, and shall not, and should not (if we are being consistent in our logic) protect us from or serve as a hedge against that (the State) which exists specifically to compel man against and in spite of his own will/choice into his legal obligation. The very fact that man does not get to choose to follow the Law is proof of the implicit assumption of legal ethics that man’s will is insufficient to ethical existence. Thus, who man wills to associate with, or what he wills to speak, or what he wills to own, or wills to pay is entirely subordinate to government Authority. Rights thus— to free speech or free association, movement or property, etc—are a complete fabrication with regard to bulwarking the individual against government oppression and suppression.

Rights at best are a well-intentioned palliative, which serves to do nothing more for the individual than encourage him to passively accept the State; to make it appear as though the State has anything of any value, practical or philosophical, to offer the individual, instead of revealing the truth, which is that the State and the Individual are mutually exclusive agencies.

END

 

Why an Opposite is Not a Corollary, and Vice Versa: Seek truth in proper definitions

Though I have touched upon this topic previously on this blog, it never hurts to revisit it. It never ceases to surprise me how even the most intelligent thinkers among us tragically confuse and conflate the concepts of “opposite” and “corollary”. To me, it is the intellectual equivalent of the common conflation of “literally” and “figuratively”. Understand that in this article I am speaking of the philosophical use of these terms…that is, how they conceptually relate to general and overall Truth, as it were. I understand that in common parlance, we read the nuances of people and language…we can easily discern that “literally” really means  “figuratively” when our neighbor declares that they “literally died” when they heard the news that the new bathroom would cost twenty thousand dollars; likewise we understand that “corollary” really means “opposite” when we hear someone explain that the corollary to things going up is that they must come down…we understand what is being said here is merely an iteration of the  common maxim that “what goes up must come down”, which we accept as such and go on with our day.

But when grand truths about existence and humanity and nature are couched in a false assumption about what is corollary, the confusion becomes very dangerous, and obviously misleading. If we believe that the “corollary” to life is death, when in fact “death” and “life” are diametrically opposed, then we have utterly misinterpreted reality and formed an idea about our existence which is about as wrong as it could possibly be. And it is the smuggling in of the false synonymic relationship  of “corollary” and “opposite” with respect to greater and profound meaning that I take issue with, and wish to set straight in order that we may stop leading ourselves astray by committing one of the most obvious and avoidable mistakes of all time: ignorance of the  basic linguistic—conceptual definitions we have set for ourselves.

I offer this article as a primer on the subject…in my customary discursive fashion.

*

The conflation of “opposite” and “corollary” is not unlike the falsely presumed interchangeability of, say, “ironic” and “coincidental”, or “ironic” and “misfortune”, in addition to the aforementioned “literally’ and “figuratively”. One can’t help but wonder how long it will take the English language to contradict itself altogether and lose all practical utility entirely.

A summary of the following article can be stated this way: Opposites do not imply each other as equally existing or occurring simultaneously, and possessing equal and shared relevance and importance in all contexts at all times. Corollaries do.

Corollaries are a single conceptual essence, broken into purely semantic distinctions, mostly for linguistic efficiency. Opposites are utterly antipodal, mutually exclusive concepts. The presence of one does not demand the simultaneous equal representation of the other; in fact, by definition, and apropos, quite the opposite is true. The presence of one implies the utter absence of the other in a given context. If X is going up, for example, X is not going down. Now, I understand that it is the inexorable inverse linguistic-semantic relationship between opposites which gives them a veneer of corollary relationship…of symbiosis. But in any practical application, this relationship is simply not so. If X goes up, X is not also going down; if X goes left, X is not also going right. To imply otherwise gives us neither opposite nor corollary, but a contradiction.

The other day a friend of mine on Facebook posted a quote attributed to Carl Jung…though I’d never stake my life on the claim that facebook memes are entirely beyond suspicion when it comes to correctly assigning quotes to speakers or authors. For all I know the quote actually came from Daffy Duck…I’m just not that familiar with Jung. But we will give my friend the benefit of the doubt and assume that she knows that these words are in fact his words:

”Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness.”

With all due respect, that assertion is at best misleading, and at worst the utterance of a man who has but a tenuous grasp of important conceptual distinctions, and thus has little business making aphorisms of any kind dialoging on existential truth. Because what is being committed here is the rational crime of confusing and conflating corollaries with opposites. Happiness is not “balanced by” sadness/darkness; happiness doesn’t demand that sadness have anything to do with it at all. In fact, by definition, the complete opposite is true.

While it is not necessarily irrational to claim that a concept implies its direct opposite, as I mentioned earlier when noting the inexorable inverse relationship of opposites, the nature of a corollary is not actually that a thing implies another thing, but that a thing is simultaneously and equally that other thing. In this context, I am not of course speaking of contradictions as being actual…I am simply explaining what is being stated when one speaks in corollaries. Corollaries are wholes which are commonly parsed—wholes considered in parts (as opposed to parts which are commonly considered in wholes (e.g. any concrete noun, and even some abstract or pseudo-abstract nouns like “collection”, “bunch”, “chaos”, “government”.)

Let’s take for example the corollary love/value. It could properly be rendered as:

It is love, therefore it is value.

There is a corollary relationship between “love” and “value”, but the corollary—the whole which is considered in parts—is love/value. Love and value are, philosophically, when speaking of corollaries, an “it” not a “them”. The corollary is properly described as “it is”, not “there is”. It is improper to render the corollary as “There is love, therefore there is value”, because the phrase “there is” implies a distinction between love and value; yet when considering the actual corollary relationship between love and value there is no distinction. Fundamentally, love is value and vice versa. Always. In all contexts and at all times. That’s why love/value is a corollary. And having said that, we can see why opposites cannot be corollaries. It is rank nonsense to claim that “it is left, therefore it is right”, or “it is up, therefore it is down”. Clearly that cannot possibly be the case, in any context, at any time. And again it’s not about implication. A corollary does not mean X implies Y. Love doesn’t imply value, it is value at the same time. Left may imply right, up may imply down, but this does not make these concepts corollary. At least not when we are speaking of root, philosophical principles. The concept of “corollary” in such a context needs to be carefully understood and properly utilized in order to avoid utterly careening offcourse and crashing disasterously into conclusions which are entirely opposite of truth.

Now, from this we can approach the distinction between opposites and corollaries from another important angle. Opposites like “happiness” and “sadness” are not corollary because, unlike true corollaries, they are always contextual, and thus always subjective. In other words, opposite concepts are not axiomatic, they are merely practical. They are always subject to a particular frame of reference. They do not apply equally to all people at all times, even given that opposites share an inverse relationship when taken purely abstractly. “Happiness” in a given individual context does not necessarily imply “sadness” at all, like “up” does not necessarily imply “down”, or “left” imply “right”. If I point to the top shelf in the pantry and say to someone “the cereal is up there”, I am not giving any value, and certainly not an equal, corollary amount, to “down there”. To assume otherwise simply confuses the issue and muddies the context of the statement. Certainly, we might make the basic, obvious semantic claim that “up there”, generally speaking, implies a “down there” generally speaking; but with opposites, unless we are in a grammar or linguistics class we are never speaking generally when using concepts like “up”, “down”, “left, “right”, etcetera. In other words, the notions of “up there” and “down there” never really come up nonspecifically. There is always a  particular “who” or a “what” to provide context. There is nothing fundamentally meaningful about “down”  relative to “up” when I am speaking of the cereal being “up there [on the top pantry shelf]”. Likewise, with respect to Jung’s quote, to say that a given individual’s life is happy does not necessarily imply that it is or has ever been to any degree sad. It is simply irrational and incorrect to claim that if one is happy he must also be or have been sad, as though it is through sadness that an individual’s happiness is manifest (and vice versa) rather than through the specific experience of whatever happy things he may have done and been a part of in his life (e,g. Having children, getting married, earning a college degree).  To claim that for one to be happy he must have the personal frame of reference of sadness is an arrant contradiction. For even if one who is happy had in the past been sad doesn’t mean that his happiness is known to actually be happiness because he has also been sad…as if sadness is the frame of reference for happiness. This is to imply that one actually means the other, which of course contradicts their very definitions, which nullifies the concept of “opposites” at root. “Happiness is sadness; sadness is happiness” is a tautological form of rational folderol. Happiness cannot also mean sadness, like up cannot also mean down. The assertion that one cannot experience happiness unless they’ve experienced sadness is, for one, not true or logical, but more egregiously, subjugates man’s existence to rational error.

True corollaries are not contextual, they are objective, universal, symbiotic, and utterly equivalent and inclusive of one another, at all times, absolutely and infinitely so. One means the other; one is the other. A corollary which is true for me is also true for you; unlike oppoites, which are subjective and contextual—what is happiness for me may be sadness for you and vice versa. But things like love and value, labor and property, ruling authority and force, truth and morality, action and ability…these are true corollaries. As they apply to me they also apply to you. If I am loving then I am valuing; likewise if you are loving then you are valuing. If I am acting then I am able to act; likewise you. If I make a truth claim then I make a morality claim; likewise you. If I am laboring then I am owning (that which with I labor—my body); likewise you. If I am a ruling authority over others then I am forcing others; likewise you.

END

The Conflicting Realites of State and Individual Citizen: The ethics difference

All governments by nature and implicit definition are founded upon collectivist, not individualist, metaphysics; and I have discussed the differences between these two metaphysical constructs many times on this blog. Government represents an Ideal, which is simply an abstract archetype for Reality, itself…a superstructure, or meta-structure, if you like, but it is completely subjective. Government is is tasked with organizing the existence of both humanity and its environment into this grand, overarching ideal, which, being subjective, could be anything at all: a Worker’s Utopia; We the People; the Aryan Nation; Society of Social Justice (i.e. Marxist Communism); God’s Chosen People; the Diversity Paradise; the King’s Land…you get the idea. In order to do this, government must first interpret Reality in a collective sense…that is, it must assume that all that is seen is a direct and absolute function of the Ideal, and government’s job is to subdue the ostensibly disparate components of Reality, including humanity, and organize them into a cooperative system which works collectively to singularly serve the interest of the Ideal…which functionally means serving the governemnt—the State—which is the material incarnation of the Ideal, containing the sum and substance of the Ideal’s entitled power of practical utility. To the individual citizen, this power, as it inevitably becomes more and more overt and comprehensive, looks like tyranny; he sees soaring tax rates and expanding government interference in commerce and free market value exchange as theft; he sees the subterfuge, doublespeak, hypocrisy, artifice, racketeering, and general political corruption as bearing false witness; he sees the warmongering, empire building, law-enforcement excess and brutality, the facilitation or outright commission of foreign and domestic political coups, false flag crises, and the insatiable military industrial complex as murder. In other words, the individual, particularly one living in a western reprentative democracy, which is founded upon the illusionary and completely contradictory-to-government notions of individual right to life and liberty…yes, the individual is operating on a different set of ethics, and this is because he is, even subconsciously, operating likewise from a different metaphysical interpretation of reality (usually…I’m speaking in general terms). You see, the individual assumes that he exists as himself, a singular agent and agency, a Self qua Self, with a singular and efficacious and actual Volition, which exists of and for and to HImself, and therefore possesses a innate and inherent right to own himself. And this means that the role of the State—though impossible, representing the very denial of government entirely—is to protect and promote his body, which he owns, and thus the product of his body’s labor, and thus to promote free association and uncoerced value exchange as a means of social, politcal, and economic association. From this Individualist principle the Individual thus assumes that coercive State policy (threats of punishment to achieve political ends) constitutes implicit (and often explicit) murder; contradiction, hypocrisy, pandering, doublespeak, subterfuge, exagerration, and propaganda is lying; taxes (at least in some forms…in reality, however, all forms), debt, economic meddling, coporate and special interest bribery, and subsidization (at least in some forms…in reality, all forms) is theft. The individual feels this way because the ethics to which he subscribes—the ethics of morality, as opposed to legality—demand that he do so. Moral ethics establish the Individual as the Standard of Universal Good and Truth. And since the Individual is defined according to the metaphysics as Singualar, Conscious, Conceptualizing, and therefore fully Volitional/Willfull, then uncoerced value exchange (i.e. trade/contract in all of its various forms, both formal and informal) represents the only ethical means by which the metaphysics can be applied rationally to Reality. The forced removal of ones property, or theft, becomes evil; violations of one’s body become murder; interpreting or rendering reality in ways which violate the Individual’s ability to properly ascertain and thus organize it (hypocrisy, false witness, deception, etc.) becomes lying. Murder, theft, lying…these are all evil according to the ethics of morality; and morality is entirely and only a function of Individualist metaphysics. And morality is NOT legality, and thus, it has nothing to do with the State. And what’s more, murder, theft, and lying only exist as a function of moral ethics. They are not and cannot be meaningful to  legal ethics. In other words, as far as the State is concerned, the lying to, and the murder and theft of the individual do not exist. And this is because the Indivdual, from the frame of reference of the collectivist metaphysics from which the State operates, does not exist. You cannot take from one who does not own himself; cannot lie to one who does not know himself; cannot murder he who is not himself.

And here we begin to see the conflict…the mutually exclusive frames of reference between the Individual Citizen and the State Official is the singular foundation of all social choas, in all forms both public and private I submit, and is implied and necessarily animated and catalyzed by the State, with increasingly authoritarian consequences. The establishment of the State creates a society where individualist and collectivist metaphysics collide. The implicit and natural awareness of the moral right of the individual to own himself is disasterously combined with the implicit legal right of the State to coerce by force the indivdual into a collective reality. The friction begins as a small festering sore which is aggravated by ever increasing government despotism against which the individual rebels in whatever way he can that will not run him afoul of the law, to no avail, as he is hopelessly outgunned by the money and violent power of the State, and marginalized and demagoged by powerful and powerfully dogmatic explicit and implicit collectivist institutions and philosophies which overtly and inadvertently promote collectivist metaphysics, like the media and the scientific and religious determinists. Thus, as more and more individuals wallow in the misery of a marginalized and meaningless existence in an ever-increasing insane asylum of collectivist disciples run by an almost unfathomably powerful and rich ruling class, and as more collectivist polices are inacted to “help” those who suffer from polices designed to destroy them by denying their existence altogether, the moral and psychological foundations crumble. The ruling class implements more and more draconian strategies to deliever on the collectivist “Eden” promised to “the People”, many of the ruling class unaware that they are the only ones who can ever possibly live in it because they are it.  All of these strategies fail, of course, because they necessarily must, because the logical presumption of collectivist metaphysics, whether a given politician knows it or not, is that the eradication of individuals is the ethical Good, and the arrant achievement of the Good is the whole damn point of of the metaphysics in the first place. Through the socialization of just about everything—from healthcare to food to education to transportation to employment to childcare to leisure—indolence is affirmed, promoted, and perpetuated. This subsidized indolence leads necessarily to the irrelevance and forsaking of one’s mind, which leads to the forsaking—implicit or explicit— of one’s Self. Eventually, no longer able to extract any more meat or leather from the tax cattle, and no longer able to pay its foreign and domestic creditors, and collapsing under the weight of debt and infighting and external pressures and threats, and thus with no one left to functionally rule and thus no one left to compel into the Collective Ideal, the ruling class collapses or dissipates or scatters or infiltrates other societies/social networks and so goes the nation. This unavoidable end is often bloody and ferocious and apocalyptic, but sometimes it fizzles with a whimper. Either way, end it shall, and there are always mass graves of some sort or another left behind to remind us of the failure of collectivist metaphysics. Not that anyone really notices because, like the Matrix, it always starts all over again eventually.

You will never convince the State that it is tyrannical, no matter how egregious its excesses or atrocious and self-serving its transgressions, because it simply possesses no frame of reference for its own tyranny. It certainly sees itself as the Authority of the land, but you must understand that it holds to a fundamentally different interpretation of the concept. To the individual citizen (and to the individualist it is explicit and obvious), State authority is simply force—government coercing via violence and threats of violence its citizens out of their life and property. In other words, though they perhaps expect the State to act morally, they comply with the State’s legality. That is, they understand that the way the State operates is to take from the individual against his will, considering will as irrelvant with respect to legal obligation, in the interest of the “greater”, or “common good”. The individual operates from a place of uncomfortable cognitive dissonance for much of the lifespan of the nation, accepting a weird and ultimately unworkable amalgamation of legal ethics and moral ethics. Eventually the people begin to notice the stark shift of social norms in the direction of the legal end of the ethical “spectrum”; this is inevitable, as the whole point of the State is to eventually subsume all vestiges of individualism into collectivist “reality”. There is greater reliance on government violence and coercion to “solve” problems, compromise or cooperation become more and more unlikely as the polarization between individualist and collectivist ideology becomes a “cold civil war”; voters are bribed with government promises to subsidize their concerns away, which inevitably requires higher taxes and even higher national debt, polarizing the nation even more as concerns about the solvency of the economy and the legitimacy of the system on the whole begin to send waves of anxiety and anger throughout the populace. Citizens are distracted from the obvious political corruption and mendacity through the bromide of political circuses, vapid entertainment heavily submerged in socialist ideology, and the corporate and political encouragement to engaged in all forms of hedonism, specifically gluttony and sexual promiscuity, with the destruction of the nuclear family and the epidemc of abortion and single motherhood further destroying social cohesion and trust, promoting even more anger and fear, all of which is naturally exploited by the ruling class towards the achievement of even more power and wealth. The citizenry is also distracted by the wanton and widespread legal double standards which excuse the political and celebrity and corporate classes from everything from child sex trafficking to open murder, whilst the middle class is terrorized by threats of being ostracized, or worse, and called insane conspiracy wackos  for merely pointing this out; and accused of all forms of bigotry for not accepting its “responsibility” to “pay its fair share”, which is simply code for accepting and embracing neo-Marxist ideology and in particular socialist economics. The lower class, whilst being imprisoned in massive numbers for the slightest and most anodyne of infractions, and imprisoned in general in ghettos of institutionalized poverty and nihilism, is used to threaten the middle class…the ruling class will have no choice, you see, but to unleash the hordes of lower/working class “victims” who are just itching to exact revenge upon their middle class slavemasters—the middle class being the bourgeoisie root of all “evil” in the world according to the Marxist collectivists who increasingly own the narrative, and this as the media becomes little more than a State Ministry of Propaganda . Borders are purposefully left porous, as a tacit lower class invasion is permitted by the State, terrorizing the middle class into greater submission. The celebrity, corporate, and political classes are of course safe and sound behind the thick, high walls, bristling with guns, of their ivory towers, so such threats and invasions against the middle class come often and easy, as those who wield power rest imminently secure. After all, worst case scenario, they can always flee to Costa Rica or some other foreign haven, and access their tax-free offshore accounts to finance their lavish lifestyles until kingdom come.

But understand, again, that because the State functions entirely from the ethics of legality and not morality, it does not acknowledge that tyranny is possible for it; it does not accept that its Authority can ever be authoritarian. For the State, theft, murder, and false witness do not exist. It cannot steal from, kill, or lie to that which it owns according to the metaphysical principles upon which it established. Remember, according to the State’s collectivist metaphysics, all of Reality is to be brought into accordance with the Collective Ideal, which is the absolute source of Reality, and the means of doing this and thus the practical (material) incarnation of this Ideal is the State. In other words, the collective Ideal is Reality, and the State’s job is to organize it so that it reflects this Ideal aesthetically. And the “perfect” aesthetics are achieved by making a “perfect” Reality, epistemologically, ethically, and politcally, all beginning with the metaphysics.

The State machinations of this undertaking may to us look like murder, theft, deception, incompetence, and corruption…and in fact they are (for the metaphysics of individualism are perfectly rational, and never contradict, which makes them True and Good; Collectivist metaphysics are thus necessarily False and Evil…and their near infinite rational inconsistency on every level bears this out). But to the State—the ruling class and their corporate/celebrity bedfellows—murder, theft, et al is merely the necessary discharging of its collectivist obligation; the perfunctory disposing of its own naturally-entitled property. Why do you think Eichmann was so blasé about his complicity in the mass extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany? Because as far as he was concerned, it was merely an administrative task…like filing records, date entry, and keeping the books. He said as much himself.  And, to be frank, he was being entirely consistent with the metaphysics which he accepted as absolute and irreducibly true. The State technically owned the Jews and everyone else, in his mind…and therefore it can’t be murder then. After all, the State has a right to do what it wants with what it rightly owns.

And by the by, all of this is true for the Church, which defines God implicitly as a Collective Ideal which it exists to discharge upon the earth by force and threats of hell and torment and excommunication. God cannot sin, you see, not fundametally becaue he is wholly rational and considers all men to be their own agents, entitled to their own lives and property and choice…in other words, not because He is moral. But because He is the Collective Ideal…He IS everything, and therefore owns everything. Thus, there is no such thing as murder, theft, et al for God. It’s all His legal right to exercise the legal ownership of His property. And the Church is His Presence on earth. So to those of you who think they shall find refuge in a some kind of “moral theocracy”, think again. “Moral theocracy” is a contradiction in terms.

END

How Democracies Inevitably Redefine Freedom to mean Slavery

It is about what a person is, not what a person feels, that fundamentally determines the collective mindset of a people. What is felt is subjective…capricious and fluid. What one is, morally defined by society—and by “society” we mean the State; for society is a function of the State, not the other way around, as we often erroneously assume—is that which is implicitly accepted as constant and objective. That is, what one is, according to the metaphysical premises of the State, ultimately determines how one shall think of himself, and thus how one shall act, and this determines the nature and morality of a society on the whole. Further, what one is, according to the metaphysical premises of the State, is often a conflation and confusion of concepts…contradiction presented to look consistent in order to convince both the ruler and the ruled of the legitimacy and morality of the system. In other words, a nation engages in mass cognitive dissonance (one might even categorize it as a form of mass psychosis) where citizens believe themselves to be free, and rulers believe themselves to be dispensers and guardians of freedom, and yet they both act and speak in ways which fundmentally contradict this belief.

I submit that we should get our emotions out of our analysis of our society; demand nothing less than rational consistency from our interpretations of what is going on around us. Ignore the vapid, gauzy distractions of patriotism and tradition and platitude and collective presumption (e.g. “One nation under God”) and judge what we hear and see by reason alone. Demand that it make sense. Don’t judge your nation and your place in it according to how you feel, but rather what you truly are in the cold, hard, logical sense, as a component of the Collective. Judge your society and your nation according to how your rulers interpret your existence metaphysically…that is, fundamentally. Only then will you truly understand your place, purpose, and future in the Collective.

The first thing you should realize is that your individuality has absolutely nothing to do with it. The State has nothing to do with You qua You. And in a nation-state, even a western representative democracy, “freedom” doesn’t mean “for the individual”; and that you must understand as a first principle of collective sociology. A collective, like the nation-state, can only ever consider freedom collectively, never individually, because the metaphysical principles of man (how man is defined as a component of reality, itself) are entirely collectivist. Man is not himself…that’s the whole point. He is utterly a product of a Collective Ideal (e.g. the “People”, as in “We the People”), or he does not and cannot exist at all. The metaphysics which underwrite the State, in other words, entirely contradict the idea that you are a singular Self. There is no You…there is only the group; only the nation on the whole, at root. The individuals who make up the group do not functionally exist except in theory. I know this is a strange thing to process and accept, but take a look around. All law is common law…which means it applies to all people at all times, equally…and this, frankly, is terrifying. The law, by definition, makes no distinctions amongst men, and in the nation-state the law is fundamental. The law considers all men criminals—it is no respecter of persons in this sense, thus. Whether you as an individual will ever rob another man is irrelevant, the law exists as a means to prevent YOU from stealing as much as it exists to prevent the thief; that is, it does not make the distinction between you and the thief in terms of whose behavior it exists to coerce and curtail. The moral man does not need the law, for he does not need to be threatened by an Authority in order for him to forsake theft. But the law is entirely ignorant of this. It doesn’t see you; it only sees humanity collectively, and humanity needs to be governed, which means it needs to be coerced, because it is metaphysically depraved, and thus ALL men are criminals by nature, in general, and thus if one man is found a thief, the other is just as likely.

“Freedom” in the context of western democracies  simply means “political representation’ for the People; and “the People” is, again, a collective Ideal. “Freedom” does not imply an existence for the individual which is empty of coercion, legal obligation, demands for obedience, punishment for rejecting the ruling class, authoritarianism, class conflict, and exploitation. It doesn’t even imply a paucity of such things; it merely implies a reinterpretation of how such things are leveled against the citizenry. And know this: the concept of freedom which follows this reinterpretation does not actually make the citizen more free, but easier for the ruling class to rule. A citizen who thinks he is free buys into a narrative which makes him more compliant. For that which he is convinced is for his own good he will do willingly; he will act as a partner, not a slave, and this makes ruling him much more efficient.

“Freedom” in the western geopolitical sense means that the government allows the citizen (and “allows” and “freedom” are mutually exclusive) to vote for those who shall rule them. And there is a certain logical flaw imbedded in that idea which is pretty obvious..anyone with even a tenuous grasp of logic can see the glaring contradiction. Notice how “representation” means that a citizen (and not even necessarily a citizen these days) may choose between candidates running for political office, but there is never a choice for “no office” and “no candidate”. One may choose between candidate A or B or C, etc. but there is no choice to have none at all. Political office is constant, and thus someone must fill it. There shall be Authority…you get no choice about that. In other words, there is no choice to not have the choice to make in the first place. If the citizens fail to make a choice, then one shall be made for them. There will be government; there will be rulers; you will be ruled. The rejection of that premise can be considered treasonous, we are told. The State itself is not up for a vote, therefore the choice you make with your vote isn’t a choice at all. It is merely a more efficient, less expensive method  of shepherding the livestock.

The reality is that via the vote a political official is being forced upon you at gunpoint, but you don’t see this because it is obscured by the bromide of “free elections”; you think this is freedom because you vote for it. You act as a partner in your own subjugation, and it’s much more fun and relaxing to be a ruler when one can rule implicitly, rather than explicitly. One is free to indulge all the opulence and trappings and fawnings of leadership without being bothered by the messy nuisance of dissent. They say it is better to be feared than respected, but it is better be be thanked and appreciated for oppressing than feared. The citizen who brcomes a partner in his own slavery will thank his master for all the master does for freedom’s sake.

Notice how in a representative democracy the government may change—and it does, and always for the worse—but it never goes away. There is always Authority; always rule; always forced compliance; it is constant. Though most assume that democracy is the essence of freedom, some assume that it is some kind of stepping stone towards true and perfect freedom, with each day bringing the nation just a little bit closer to frolicking in the verdant Eden of completely unfettered bliss. And yet with each passing day even in the “freeist” of societies the State always gets bigger, never smaller. But we accept this as a mere necessity of freedom; for with greater freedom comes greater collective responsibility (another contradiction), and because it is collective that which must be in charge of this responsibility is the State, because collective responsibility is rooted in collective metaphysics, which inexorably implies that the individual must be coerced. And legal (which is implicitly taken to mean “moral”) coercion is the purview of the State.

Collectivist metaphysics presumes that the freer an individual becomes, the less devoted he is to his collective responsibility, and this has to do with his endemic and natural rejection of the truth of collective reality. And so his increasing “freedom” within his “representative democracy” must be manifest through more and more collective obligation. Thus, ironically, with more freedom comes more regulation; and thus a “free society” becomes one where everyone has their education paid for, their healthcare, their education, their children, their housing, their food, their cars, their feelings. The “truly free” are those whose lives are entirely subsidized so that they may run off to the fields and do absolutely nothing except enjoy their freedom, just like children. For even thinking, about anything of any substance at all, is a burden they should not have to bear. And thus “freedom” and “personal responsibitly” are completely mutually exclusive inside the great playground of enlightened western democracy.

*

In a free and democratic nation you do not get to vote for no government. The very idea is a contradiction in terms. This is because “government” is a metaphysical premise. Government is not simply a tool: it is not a means to an end…it is the end. It is the apogee and incarnation of the Collective Ideal, Itself, from which all people and all reality is spawned and determined. “The People”, “The Nation”, “The Workers Utopia”, “The Race”, “The Culture”, “The Church”, “The Company”, “The King”…these are metaphysical premises from which all reality is to spring. They are immutable. They are All. The Collective is Reality, you see. The Collective is everything…the root; You, the Individual, are merely an epiphenomenon at best, your very conscious awareness of Self is purely illusory, a lie, and thus irrelevant in the grand scheme of truth and reality and existence. And this individuality thus must be expelled by State force so that you may indulge your “freedom” productively, for the good of the Collective, not yourself…the State, which exists to dictate the terms of existence which you shall obey…so that you can be free, you see.

And thus, no matter how free you may think you are or feel you are, actual freedom is nothing, obedience is everything. Rank obedience to Law, to the ruling class, is your first and only real responsibility and purpose…not choice, not ambition, not personal responsibility. (And it is hilarious that we should believe that “personal responsibility” as a citizen is something to which we should rationally aspire. The entire metaphyscial premise upon which the State is built is the premise which declares that man is entirely insufficient by nature to his own existence. Man must be governed because he cannot govern himself. For if man were to assume such personal responsibility, he must surely degenerate into a churning, blood-filled cauldron of self-destruction. The whole point of the establishment of the State is that man is existentially incapable of “personal responsibility.) So, you can vote all you want, but obedience to Authority, not freedom, is all you are ever voting for, and all you shall ever get through political representation. The only real freedom there is, when all is said and done, is ironically the only freedom you cannot vote for, and thus you shall never have, in any democracy, anywhere, ever, because it is in direct opposition to the very premise of the State, because it is not freedom by the State, but freedom from it. And this is the freedom which says that no vote, ever, anywhere, by anyone, shall be considered a legitimate moral excuse to put a gun to your head, or mine and force us to act. This freedom is the only one that matters, and it is not up for a vote. Because the State is not the vote; not the ballot; not representation. The State is a gun, period, that exists solely and exclusively to compel human action in support of a Collective Ideal that man shall obey or be punished, up to death. And there is no rational definition of “freedom” in the world which is consistent with that scenario, except in the minds of madmen. And though all the rights you may granted by your democratically elected government, you shall never be granted the right to be free of the institutions which claim the sole Authority to interpret your existence and thus define what your “rights” are in the first place.

Yes, in our western representative democracies our cage may be larger and more comfortable than those of overt autocracies, but they are cages nevertheless. So let’s at least be honest with ourselves about it, and cease all this fatuous talk of freedom. Freedom is not what’s going on here.

END

 

The Inherent Subjectivity of Games, and Why They Have Nothing to do With Winning and Losing

From the frame of reference of the game, any game, there can be no actual value distinction between winning and losing. In other words, a game is a singular set of given rules, though there may be sub-categories within the set, or allowances made for deviation and/or exception, but these also are a function of the singular set of rules. This singular set of rules direct players to a conclusion which they know as winning and losing…success or failure, or any degree therein. What this means is that the game equally implies both winning and losing. That is, both winning and losing are equal functions of the exact same set of rules. Thus, from the frame of reference of the game, there can be no value distinction between winning and losing. The rules imply both of them, equally. The value distinction of the outcome of the game, and thus the value of the game itself (for there is no game without an eventual outcome) must come from outside of it.

Do you see what this means?

The game, itself, cannot claim that winning is better than losing. The game doesn’t care…the game cannot care…because the rules mean both. A player wins or loses, the game does not. The game does neither. The game provides the conduit to winning or losing…a single hallway with two doors on either side of it.  The hallway contains both doors equally, yet the hallway is not concerned with what lay beyond them. Thus, as far as the game is concerned, winning is indistinguishable from losing…one door is the same as the other. And this means that from the frame of reference of the game, neither winning nor losing exists at all. They are merely arbitrary mathematical distinctions provided by the player, and having meaning only to him, because they have no bearing on the singular set of rules which comprise the game.

The rules that provide a conduit by which a mathematical distinction—a number—is derived do not discriminate against the data which the player inputs into the game from which that number is calculated. Again, the rules are merely a computing system which turns a players input—his skill or luck—into a mathematical sum. And it is the player—or any individual for that matter, player, spectator, or other— who thus determines any practical value/utility from that sum. That practical value/utility is ultimately subjective, however, because it is referenced to the game, and the game itself—the set of rules—is a function of man. In other words, man is why the game exists in the first place…without man, there is no game. So there can be no objective value given to man which is reference to the game…the game which would not exist without him in the first place. In short, human worth cannot be objectively calculated by processes, like games, because they could not and would not exist without him.

*

The player’s data (his skill or luck) is fed into the game, the rules process the data according to internally immutable parameters, a mathematical amount (of some form) is calculated and delivered. The game does not and cannot care what that amount is…it does not and cannot tell the difference. And this is because it does not and cannot care about the data which is inputted wholly from outside of it. The same, singular set of rules deliver all amounts; and this means that all amounts are functionally equal as far as the game is concerned. Thus, the game itself never implies value distinction of any kind—mathematical, moral, practical, theoretical, etcetera—between “winning” and “losing”. And because it recognizes no distinction between winning and losing, it doesn’t recognize them at all. The rules (the game) imply an outcome, but they do not not determine the specific value of specific outcomes. The data determines value…or rather, that from which the data is a function—the player; the individual—determines value. The individual—and not necessarily just the player, but any individual, being player or spectator, or other—determines the values of the outcomes, in whatever way “value” happens to be defined, and this is because the individual determines the value of the game itself, because games are functions of individuals, not the other way around. The individual provides the material for the game from his very existence, and thus he grants it relevance and meaning and purpose…he provides the “why” for playing the game, and for creating it at all. The value of the game and its outcomes, just like the value of playing it in the first place, is always thus going to be entirely arbitrary. Subjective. “Winning” and “losing” are fluid concepts, their value being completely subject to a given individual. “Wining” and “losing” are good or bad depending on the perspective of the individual. For example, if I have no disposable income, yet gamble at poker and lose, then losing is bad. But if it’s ten o’clock at night and I just want to go to bed and for my daughter to do the same, then me losing a game of Go Fish to her isn’t any worse than winning because my real goal is simply for the game to end as quickly as possible. Losing brings this end about as equally as winning. So I “win’ either way.

*

Problems arise when we attempt to assign objective value to winning, losing, and the playing of games. That is, we allow the game to dictate objective value to the individual rather than derive its own subjective value from him. Dong this gives the game a prerogative that it simply cannot accommodate. Games cannot dictate value to individuals because games have no inherent meaning except as a product of individuals. Another way of looking at it is that a great player is only great within the context of the game. His greatness does not follow him beyond its boundaries. Though his skills may apply to other aspects of his life, these skills are distinct from the rules of the game, thus they have nothing fundametally to do with it. As soon as these skills are removed from the context of the game, they do not necessarily imply greatness. A player’s greatness inside the game is merely a reflection of the context of the rules. It’s not a greatness of himself, but merely a subjective declaration of his value inside the game only. To determine that one has value outside of the game simply because of his value inside of it is to allow games—which could neither exist, nor have meaning, purpose, or value without the individual—to subordinate the existential worth of people to the utterly subjective, arbitrary, and facile worth of games.

It is precisely this reversal of reason which leads to cheating…along with exploitation (of players and fans and others), manipulation, and mendacity, which are all simply degrees of cheating, I submit, as they seek to coerce the value of the game to one’s own favor from beyond the rules. Players crave the (false) honor and approbation of being great as the game dictates greatness, yet they understand, perhaps instinctively, that the rules do not own them…do not replace their own volition, so they violate the rules when no one is watching (or when they think no one is watching) to achieve their desired outcome. Contrary to popular assumption, losing the game, you see, is not in fact more honorable than wining by cheating, because rule-following itself is ultimately meaningless and valueless without victory. Rule-following itself isn’t noble because it is merely obedience, and obedience means nothing but subjugation; but victory has the potential of transferring one from the position of subject to the position of ruler…because value, again, is assumed to be objectively derived from the game. But if this is the case, then no value can come from losing—for losing implies merely that one is capable of obeying to rules; but winning implies that one is capable of turning that obedience into power. And power is what separates the subjects from the rulers. In other words, to accept that there is some kind of inherent nobility and integrity to rule-following is to imply that slavery is a position to which one should aspire. But slavery, by definition, requires no will, thus making aspiration moot. Power belongs to those who accept that the game is the giver of human worth and who understand that to win the game, especially by manipulation of the rules (cheating, or a form thereof), is to become the game, and thus become the Authority who determines the worth of everyone else.

The real truth is that games, rules, laws, processes, computations, equations, strategies, directions, authority, guidelines, paradigms, constructs…all of these are of men, for men, and valued solely by men. To reverse this relationship—to make men the product of these rather than the master—is to turn man into a mindless, collective and collectivist beast, and ensures that the only score left on the board in the end is murder and destruction.

END