Resistance is Futile: The false logic of the Borg collective and why the church is just like them

A reader here, Jason Coates, left this excellent observation in the comments thread of the last post:

This the church is not: “We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”

Sitting at a church conference this weekend I was not surprised to hear the WOF/Hillsong preacher start babbling on about the believer not being separated from church and the importance of tithing and rightful submission to apostles. These guys are from the Delta quadrant after all.

*

Jason,

The Borg.  LOL.  That’s a good way of putting it.

The irony about the Borg…they say, as you quoted “we will add your…distinctiveness to our own.”  But the very fact that they feel it is their right to absorb you into their collective is proof that they, in fact, deny your distinctiveness.  They deny that you have any right to BE you, and instead declare that your existence is the sole property of them. That you don’t actually possess you; but that they possess you, which means that YOU don’t exist in the first place; which means that YOU, by definition, cannot be “distinct”.

Kinda like the local…

Wait.  Let’s think some more about this.  This is fascinating.  Jason, you’ve hit upon something here.

For all their “logic”, it came down to one thing only with the Borg:  force…which is violence.  They sounded impressive with their robotic voices and their unemotional waxing eloquent about their efficiency and power, but when the metaphysical assumptions are taken to their logical conclusion, the only thing the Borg really knew was that the the supreme ability to destroy is the root of existence.

That is…what they believed was that the destruction of all OTHERS is what leads to the perpetual existence of the SELF.  And what this really means is that death is the sole vehicle for life. That the creative process is accomplished solely via the banishment of what IS (in this case, YOU) into the endless chasm of what is NOT (in this case, NOT YOU, but them; that is, YOU are them, and as such YOU, strictly speaking, are NOT).

This is of course impossible; anyone with ten seconds of free time to spare mulling this over will realize that this is a rank a contradiction in terms. If OTHER is destroyed then how can one know the SELF?  Without OTHER by which to juxtapose the SELF, the SELF ceases to have any meaning.  In order to say I AM, one must be able to say I AM NOT.  If AM is endless and absolute, to the exclusion of all OTHER, then AM cannot have any definition. What is, is, goes the “logic”.  AM…or IS, becomes a circular and irrelevant concept. In other words, without an IS NOT, the IS means nothing.  There is no such thing as what IS unless there is also something which that IS, IS NOT.

It is hard to get your head around this, but give it a try.  Here, get ready for some fucking egregious discursive logic:

The point I’m trying to make is that without OTHER the SELF cannot be given a value.  The SELF is what it is, period…SELF is the sum and substance of its definition.  And if the sum and substance of the existence equation–where x is the SELF and SELF is infinite–is:  x = x, then x cannot even be qualified as existing in the first place.  You see?  Existence at its root is movement and movement is relative.  Think about it:  If there is no movement (and think of movement not only as directional (linear) but also as “existence through time”, or “temporal being” if that makes it easier) then there can be no relationship with OTHER; and if there is no relationship with OTHER then there is no inherent value to the SELFAnd if the value of the SELF is zero then existence is, by definition, NOTHING.  So, in order for the SELF to have any relevancy it must understand–via consciousness/self-awareness–how it is distinct from OTHER and then it must interact with OTHER in order that its efficacious-ness as a distinctive SELF can be realized (which is why God cannot simply create and then dash away as the deists believed).

Think of it this way:  What is consciousness without senses?  And I don’t simply mean sight; I mean all your senses.  No smell, taste, sound, nor touch either.

It is simple:  without sense, there is no way for the consciousness to realize that it is, in fact, conscious. And this makes consciousness what?  It makes consciousness, by default, unconscious.  Which is a contradiction in terms.  Meaning that sense and consciousness must exist in tandem or there is NO practical consciousness at all.  Now, I say “practical” because I am not suggesting necessarily that sense and consciousness are metaphysically one; that your consciousness is a direct function of your senses.  There is something interesting about, and something to be said for, the fact that even with all of your amazing five senses you cannot observe your own consciousness.  This makes your consciousness indeed the infinite singularity of your existence, which always IS, without any qualifiable or quantifiable location in “space or time”, which means that you cannot directly observe its relative relationship to OTHER.  Hmm…yes, very interesting.  You cannot look back in on yourself, so to speak.  So what I’m saying is not that the consciousness does not exist without the senses but that the consciousness cannot be defined as existing without the senses.  I know this seems like the same thing but I submit that their is a delicate difference.  The senses allow the infinite SELF to be aware of itself, by observing OTHER–which is a purely relative relationship–and thus acknowledge its “existence”.  Without the senses, existence cannot be valued or defined, and thus, it can have no practical application or efficacy…it is irrelevant.  And irrelevancy is FUNCTIONALLY–according to how we observe our relative existence with OTHER in our reality–the same thing as non-existence when practically applied.

This begs more thought, and warrants a post of its own at some later time

Wheeeeeeee….wasn’t that fun?

So, anyway…back to my point.  What are the senses for?  They are explicitly for making the SELF aware of what it is NOT in order that it may define itself.  And the definition of the SELF is the root of ALL existence relevantly and practically speaking…even for God.  And this requires the existence–the presence–of OTHER.  Which means that if we seek to integrate all OTHER(S) into the SELF, then we are, in fact, destroying the very SELF we think we are perpetuating.  And that is the great logical fallacy of the Borg.

Which is why the Borg were murdering thugs and nothing more; and this is evident from their rank philosophical hypocrisy.  They were murdering thugs for the same reason ALL murdering thugs are murdering thugs; for the same reason that ALL despots are despots:  They held irrational, incompatible, and irreconcilable root assumptions concerning the metaphysics of reality.

And you know what…

This makes the Borg a perfect metaphor for the theo-marxist collective known as the neo-Calvinist “local church”.

Well done, Jason.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Resistance is Futile: The false logic of the Borg collective and why the church is just like them

  1. Yes, there can be NO practical distinction between consciousness the senses. This is an axiom. consciousness and perception are corollaries. Just as existence and consciousness are corollaries. To be conscious is to be conscious of something and the means of acquiring that something are the perceptions of man. And by definition all of these must have an identity … meaning that consciousness of man must have an identity and an identity is a particular defined by its unique qualities.

    so what Argo is arguing… very well I might add . . . is that the SELF has a particular identity that is measure by its unique qualities. Therefore all efforts to push man towards a collective consciousness is by default an effort to wipe MAN as an individual out of existence, which means that all collectivist ideologies are cults of death

  2. Perhaps this lack of totality or refusal to move in its direction is a post-modernist bent and this is what today’s Calvinists find so appealing. We don’t have to rationalize because we are NOT able and because we are not able there is no meaning in totality or totality does not exist. We have no origin or starting point or as you put it, Argo we have a “stillbirth”.

    The Theist would surely know “in whom we live and move and have our being” and cannot be bound like the deist who eats his oats with curdled milk as he focuses on his separateness and forgets his marvellous individuality.

    Consciousness is not separate from logic but surely it must transcend time. Neither can our existence or concerns be simply be made temporal. They must transcend time. So then where is our root? It cannot be the Borg because the Borg is a self-defeating creation – it is meaninglessness.

  3. “Therefore all efforts to push man towards a collective consciousness is by default an effort to wipe MAN as an individual out of existence, which means that all collectivist ideologies are cults of death”

    Your phrase “cult of death” is one of my all time favorites. It succinctly describes the sum and substances of collectivist ideologies, of which reformed theology is a glittering example.

    People have a hard time seeing this I think-in part, anyway-because they only consider it death if a body is put into the ground. They don’t see how the sacrifice of the mind to collectivist group think is functionally the exact same thing. There is no practical difference between another owning you absolutely and you being NOT. There is no neutral ground between being a fully autonomous and distinct SELF and being dead. For death IS simply NOT being. Not being what? Not being YOU.

    If your value is only found in the group, then the cover charge for getting in is the DEATH of SELF.

  4. Argo (a side note) have you read the last three comments to you at “God, Church, Family, Work: The oppressive fallacy of abstract value hierarchies”?

  5. “People have a hard time seeing this I think-in part, anyway-because they only consider it death if a body is put into the ground. They don’t see how the sacrifice of the mind to collectivist group think is functionally the exact same thing. There is no practical difference between another owning you absolutel”y and you being NOT. There is no neutral ground between being a fully autonomous and distinct SELF and being dead. For death IS simply NOT being. Not being what? Not being YOU.”

    Bingo. I have come to see this a lot on spiritual abuse blogs that become a “group” a collectiver. So they take on to varying degrees the same position (albeit opposite) of the fundys/neo cals they oppose. You can see the peer pressure of the group win. No one wants to be the bad guy who disagrees. Or if they do and don’t care, they get banged on by others on the comment stream. It is not about discussing differences on an issue it becomes personal. Even though you came there as someone who abhors abuse. The problem is some folks don’t want to deal with the roots of where abuse comes from. So the “group” ends up trading one tyrant for another they cannot see is a tyrant.

    It is so strange but one can see the greatest tyranny of all is wanting to be liked/accepted by the group. Then they own your mind.

    “If your value is only found in the group, then the cover charge for getting in is the DEATH of SELF.”

    Now here is a great point to teach your kids. I am teaching mine how to be “floaters” but not “joiners”. AT their age, they cannot escape totally the group mentality but they can observe it. And they have LOVED being “floaters”. They find it much more interesting and a safety escape.

  6. Lydia,

    Yes. I mean I have no problem with groups per se. But they become dangerous when they attempt to supplant the individual as the source of metaphysical reality. Recognizing that all value is rooted in you as an individual and it is the individual which gives any truth or value to the group is a great way to inhibit if not prohibit the sense that one must “belong” to the group.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s