The Shortest Duration of Time is Infinity: The case for consciousness, part two

In part one of this series we were looking at a couple of Zeno’s paradoxes–a temporal dichotomy paradox and a distance paradox–and I was applying Einstein’s coupling of space and time (each as a function of the other) to dismantle the apparent contradictions.  As you may also recall, the explanations were loquacious and gratuitous, and you may or may not have gathered exactly how I arrive at my overall point:  location is not a function of distance traveled, but is a relative function of the amount of existence  of one object or agent compared to another, and this is accomplished because increased speed results in decreased time, or “age”; that is, the paradoxes were resolved by explaining that the object which is in motion ages less relative to the object which is static; or the faster object ages less relative to the slower object, depending on which paradox is in question.  This means that it is possible for the “paradoxes” to be resolved (for there is no “infinite distance”; nor is there any “infinite time”)  by the object which is moving or moving faster.

In other words, since time isn’t the same for the two objects being compared in either paradox, there is, in fact, no paradox at all.

See what I mean?

Long-winded and not a little confusing.

Thankfully, we don’t need to rely upon Einstein to resolve these interesting, though ultimately false, Greek paradoxes.  Why?  Because we have reason here.  And truth is never rooted in abstract theories like Relativity, which in fact irrationally confirms the existence and causal power of what are wholly abstract concepts (like space, time, distance, acceleration, etc.); rather, truth is always rooted in consistent philosophical premises which are inexorably tied to a rationally explained, consciously observed and OBJECTIVE standard of TRUTH.  That standard is, of course, individual human life.  Any other standard must be false by definition, because existence of the individual SELF is the absolute and inexorable and infinite prerequisite for anything being being understood, observed, believed, thought or conceded (or the opposite of those)…anything by anyone.

So, for the purposes of metaphysical and epistemological truth– which unlike physics and mathematics is of the non-abstract variety–we can toss Einstein’s theory of Relativity and its requisite calculus out the proverbial window.  I merely used those two paradoxes in the first installment of this series as examples of ideas which on the surface may seem legitimately to be at inexplicable odds, but when we apply the TRUTH of individual existence, which is infinite (the infinite IS, the SELF) and therefore is a real but relative existence, we can more easily see how the paradoxes vanish like so much morning mist.

And here Einstein, while his theory fails to arrive at the logical conclusion of his assumptions, at least begins to set the legitimate stage for the reality of all material objects.  He correctly observes that “location” is relative from one object (or objects) to the next as a function of location (space) and time.  However, he fails to declare that all of those ways we qualify the movement–speed, acceleration, distance, time–are not ACTUAL, and thus possess no efficacious control over objects, and his correct grasp on relativity should make this obvious.  But I suppose that if math is how you explain why reality does what it does, and that is your singular belief, then it will naturally be quite impossible to concede this, even if it means the difference between contradicting your own theory of the relativity of movement and being consistent with it.

At any rate, the point I am trying to make is that once we understand and accept that the existence between material objects/agents is in fact relative, we can easily arrive at the logical conclusion that the existence of objects and agents is rooted in infinity.  Meaning there is something inherent to the material object which IS, and IS absolute; and therefore, its ability to interact with OTHER must in fact be purely rooted in relative movement.

This of course begs the question, how can what is infinite and absolute be mitigated in the first place, in order that it can have  relative existence with other objects which can be qualified and quantified via a system of conceptual abstractions generated by man’s consciousness?

The answer to this involves the one thing which represents intellectual kryptonite to many (if not most) physicists and other scientists the world over…something that they avoid discussing at all costs, which is precisely why they are no closer to discovering any type of existential (and thus actual) truth than since the discipline was first unleashed upon the Earth.  And that thing is:  consciousness.

And consciousness means God.

And that of course [sarcasm inserted here] is a completely separate issue from the “hard evidence”, and quantifiable “laws which govern”, of science, which arrogantly sees philosophy as a little more than a punchline, never once realizing that it was philosophers who first substituted X and Y for the apple and the moon, and then multiplied them together in order to explain a “natural law”.

And God is not physics, but metaphysics.  Which must certainly make God a fake, and metaphysics mysticism.

Of course this could not be further from the truth.  When human consciousness is no longer required to know that m(a) = F, and therefore is not required for it to be true, then I will concede that physics is FIRST in the existential chain, not metaphysics.  But since this cannot happen without the person proclaiming thus contradicting their own argument at first utterance, I will rest comfortable in the knowledge that I am absolutely right about this.

But the irony of the whole physicist versus philosopher thing is this, and its actually pretty funny when you think about it:  Despite his best efforts, and those of subsequent priests of the abstract cosmos, Einstein, as I said, and as I illustrated in the previous post in this series, actually comes closer to getting the metaphysics right (existence of bodies being relative with respect to each other) than the Greek philosophers who posited the previously mentioned paradoxes as proof that movement is illusion…yes, it turns out that those sage old men who ostensibly made getting the metaphysics right the sum and substance of their legacy, seem to have decided, in the interest of maintaining the observable irrationality of the paradoxes, that the concepts of time and distance and speed are decidedly NOT relative, but actual and causal.  And if speed and distance and time can only be declared paradoxical with respect to the context of man if they are assumed to be actual, then the invariable nature of their paradoxical existence to man which led Zeno and Parmenides to deny the reality of movement should lead us to do the same.  And further, we should understand that if movement is an illusion than so is humanity and its consciousness as well.

But when we think about this long enough, and assume that material reality is rooted in infinity (meaning that there is no singular “part”, or “particle” which is the root of all matter, and is self-contained and surrounded by space, and yet possesses no dimensions…I have an entire article on this topic alone), then we are forced to admit, I submit, that not only is movement NOT an illusion but it is impossible to concede that anything exists at all, including consciousness, unless we first concede that movement is actual and causal.  Therefore movement may be rooted in the infinity of the material SELF of objects or agents, and thus is relative, but this does not make it illusory.  It is not an abstraction, nor it is a mere concept which is a product of man’s mind.  If movement does not actually exist, then man cannot either.

The only way for what I call the infinite universal material (IUM) which comprises all that actually exists to become object, agent, and consciousness (the prime example being man), then it must move relative to itself.  It must possess “parts” of itself which exist as a function of separate and distinct being.  And if all objects which are ARE, then all distinct objects are equally infinite.  Which makes existence relative…and yet does not render it false.  Because if I am here, and I am infinite at my root as a distinct object/agent from you, who is infinite and who is there, and our existence is thus equal (infinite) then how I got here and you got there can only be explained by movement.  That is, our separate existences are both infinite and yet they are observably distinct (we observe the “space” between us).  I must have arrived here to be me, infinitely, as the absolute context of my SELF, while you arrived there to be you, infinitely, as the absolute context context your SELF.  In both cases, granted, the frame of reference, SELF, does not in fact move with respect to that same SELF, so I can see how anyone who follows the logic to this conclusion might decide that movement is an illusion.  But in order to arrive here versus there from an indistinct initial infinite state (the IUM), I and you must have been placed here and NOT there, which implies movement.  Therefore, the observable fact still remains that in order for me to have a consciousness to observe YOU and ME as distinct and separate, MY infinite non-moving context cannot apply to YOU.  From my frame of reference, I do not move, yes, but you MUST, in order to always be THERE, because you cannot by definition be HERE, because here is the infinite me.  And the converse is true.  I move as a function of YOUR infinite unmoving context, and you move as a function of MY infinite unmoving context.  So, again, it isn’t that movement is an illusion…on the contrary it must be real.  Again, if I am infinitely here, then you must ALWAYS and infinitely move relative to me.  And vice versa.  Thus, and again, this makes movement indeed relative, but not a lie. Movement MUST exist, relatively, when two or more infinite “parts” come into being.

But we must not assume that ALL movement is linear.  In fact, movement is at its root not linear, but existential.  Infinite parts of an infinite source arrive at their particular location–that is, they MOVE there–when the infinite source is observed.

Therefore, I proclaim as axiomatic this: movement  MUST exist when what is infinite is observed.  

And this is where God comes in.  But more on that later.

*

Existence as movement

Like I said, I believe, as a foundational tenet of my philosophy, that movement is not merely linear (directional), but is existential.  That is, the “parts” of the IUM must move in the direction of their own distinct existence first, before any subsequent linear movement and thus interaction can occur.  I would argue that not only is movement not an illusion, but that existence is movement.  It is the movement of the SELF of all material objects, by which they posses the inherent capacity to cause and be caused upon in relative relationships with other parts.  And, as the parts are infinite, the relative movement and combinations of these parts of the IUM are likewise infinite.  An infinite number of infinite selves moving and interacting in an infinite number of ways.  And from this we get the consciousness of man’s mind and the existence of everything in the cosmos.  For that which is said to exist must be KNOWN and observed to exist first; thus, consciousness is required for the IUM to be qualified as existing.

This being the case, I admit that I am arguing that man is as necessary to the existence of what he observes and conceptually qualifies as existing as God is.  Meaning that without the creation of conscious man, the creation of the rest of Creation, which is unconscious, is irrelevant.  And as I have argued many times previously, that which is irrelevant cannot be defined as true; and what cannot be defined as true cannot be defined as anything at all.  Therefore, the creation of the irrelevant is functionally equal to the creation of NOTHING at all.  So, in order for God to have created something that can be relevantly qualified as SOMETHING, conscious and self-aware man is an absolutely necessary part of the creation equation, not merely a superfluous (or totally depraved) component.

Now, some may argue that I am trying to usurp God as the sole Creator, as the necessary “first” cause to all that proceeds into Creation.  But understand that when I proclaim God the Creator, my understanding of how God does this has nothing whatsoever to do with the typically conceded doctrine of “ex nihilo”…that is, the idea that God created Creation out of “nothing”.  This is an impossible contradiction in terms, and there is no way to rationally argue it.  When one concedes ex nihilo, one concedes that all of Creation rests on an impossible contradiction, thus making Creation itself irrational and without any reasonable defense for its existence.  This is the very definition of insanity, and is wholly untenable, and therefore it must be denied; and deny it I most vociferously do.

But contrary to this, I argue that all which exists is a function of what I have called the Infinite Universal Material (again, IUM), which moves into an infinite number of infinite parts which are moving infinitely in relative relationships with each other upon conscious observation.  And this observation is demanded, for otherwise there can be no “creation” of that which is infinitely itself, and beyond that has no other definition.  For that which is infinitely itself precludes all rational or relevant definitions, qualifications, or quantifications, even “existence”.  And again, that which is utterly undefinable and irrelevant cannot possibly be efficacious for anything.  Therefore, its functional meaning and purpose is zero; and its existential essence can only be rationally defined as nothing.

However, when what is infinite is observed (and in this case I argue, by God), then it is no longer infinite, by definition.  It is relatively finite, which means that it now has an actual definition:  that which is NOT God.  This is an excellent start for everything (as well as the only start).  You have the explosive combination which must result in inexorable creation:  The Creator, and that which is able to be Created.  Because God did not create out of nothing. He possesses the infinite ability to create, and the IUM is that which possesses the infinite ability to be caused upon by God’s ability to create.  This innate ability to be caused upon is the root of the existence of every material thing which is.  It is the infinite SELF of all objects.  For example, before the apple can fall from the tree, it must possess the inherent ability to be caused upon by the gravity of the Earth FIRST.  See?  There is a SELF which must be an IS in order that it can infinitely and perpetually be caused upon by whatever else it is observed to interact with.  Before I can see you, you must possess the inherent ability to be seen by me.  And vice versa.  And this innate ability to be caused upon (which results in the ability to “cause” effects in other objects, which are conceptual abstractions at their root…for in actuality, effect always precedes cause, making “cause and effect” purely a conceptual abstraction; or better said, the ability to be effected is the “cause” of everything which exists and their relative interactions)…yes, this infinite ability to be caused upon is the metaphysically absolute essence of everything.

But “NOT God” is not, alone, relevant.  It has a definitive property/definition, but it is not efficacious TO any purpose.  What is required for that is that what is created must A. be consciously aware that it is an existent SELF, which is NOT God, and B. that God is God; that is, God is He who has the power of creation.  And this is done via the ability of the conscious created agent to conceptualize SELF as juxtaposed to what is NOT self.

Enter man.

But it is man who gets to, and MUST, be the one who conceptualizes and thus qualifies Creation’s relevant, functional, efficacious existence, which makes MAN the objective standard of all morality and truth, not God.  Meaning creation was FOR man that man may recognize it and give it its purpose, meaning, and relevancy.  For he is of Creation, and he is also the infinite and singular context of its ability to KNOW SELF, and therefore to BE, which is that from which all TRUTH is a direct derivation.  For without man, creation could not have been made by God; for it would have been a wholly irrelevant act, with no purpose.  And he who can argue that God is the creator of the irrelevant is he who can argue that God is the Creator of NOTHING.  And if God is in fact the Creator of nothing, then by definition He is not the Creator at all.

That’s enough for now…a lot to digest and to ponder, I know.  Undoubtedly I’ve not convinced all of you (possibly not even any of you) that my rationale behind the infinite nature versus relative existence is true.  But this is something I must explain, as much for myself as anyone else.  I am looking for a rational explanation of existence, and this will not happen if conceptual abstractions, like the “laws of physics/nature” or any other determinist philosophy, continue to be the causal power behind what we observe to be real, which must include humanity itself.  If this is true, then so are Zeno’s paradoxes, and the slower runner overtaking the faster one or your arriving at the bus stop on time is purely a lie; an illusion.  We never pass the slow, and we never arrive where we want to go.  The logical conclusion of this is that we never are who we think we are.

Which makes us…nothing.

In our next installment, we’ll examine the rationale behind “elementary particles”.

 

 

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “The Shortest Duration of Time is Infinity: The case for consciousness, part two

  1. Why must we prove existence exists? That is an axiom. There is nothing that can precede existence.

  2. John,

    Consciousness must precede existence, because existence cannot be known as axiomatic until it is observed by a self-aware agent. This means that by definition existence cannot exist until it is FIRST observed. Therefore the proof of existence is really rooted in rationally proving the existence of an ACTUAL, non-illusory consciousness as its prerequisite. The fact that consciousness is observed to be a direct derivative of physical matter doesn’t necessarily mean that that matter precedes it. Again, by definition without consciousness–the ability to know SELF from NOT SELF–any matter we want to point to cannot be qualified as anything at all. And that includes “existing”.

  3. I hope you didn’t read the unedited version of this article. I accidentally posted before I finished proof reading Lol…sorry about that.

  4. I do not consider “existence exists” to be a legitimate argument for existence. It may be a true statement, but WHY is it true? That’s the question which must be answered.

    The physicists would say that the cause of existence are the “laws of nature which govern”. I reject that as impossible. I submit that consciousness is the cause of existence, and that is what I am attempting to argue with this series.

    If we say existence exists without defining existence, which means illustrating its truth as consistent with a knowable (enter consciousness) standard OF truth, then existence can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Often times, this becomes the seed of determinist philosophy.

    Existence must be known. So I’m interested in how that works.

  5. “Consciousness must precede existence, because existence cannot be known as axiomatic until it is observed by a self-aware agent. This means that by definition existence cannot exist until it is FIRST observed.”

    Yea… this is David Hume’s root argument for the primacy of consciousness.

    Existence and Consciousness are corollaries. To be conscious is to be conscious of something and that something is existence. And without existence there is nothing to be conscious of. “Self aware” presumes an awareness of something already in existence. That something is a consciousness aware of (its) existence. “Agent” is a concept defining action. Action cannot be taken in a vacuum. Action is taken in existence. So, I submit that a “self aware agent” is a step removed on the metaphysical progression table. The root is existence , hence existence is the axiom.

  6. “Yea… this is David Hume’s root argument for the primacy of consciousness.”

    Then either he is wrong or you have misinterpreted my view. I am not arguing for a PRIMACY of consciousness. You are assuming that when I say “without consciousness nothing can exist” that I am making a hierarchical argument vis-a-vis cause and effect. That consciousness causes existence. But as you can see in the article, I do not concede that cause and effect relationships are actual; they are conceptual; that is, a way man labels specific movements between objects/agents he observes. The ability of any object to interact with any other begins with the root ability of objects to be “caused upon”. This means that all effects are really rooted in the infinite essence of their material. And if interactions are a function of infinity, then there is no such actual thing as “cause and effect”. For cause and effect to be efficacious, consciousness is required to mitigate the infinity, otherwise cause and effect, like every other concept, is meaningless. Hence, I do not argue a primacy of anything. I deny that they are corollaries. That is an assumption for which I have not yet heard a defensible rationale. It assumes an actual relationship when the relationship is purely conceptual.

    I argue a standard of TRUTH, period. That standard is not the “cause”, and it is not “primary”. It is merely that thing by which ALL which is known or conceded can be valued as true or false. The standard is human life; and human life is conscious, and infinitely so. The statement “existence exists” is only true insofar as it supports the standard of TRUTH; the perpetuation of human life. Saying that life IS, is true, because human life serves the standard.

    “Existence” cannot be an axiom because it cannot be true unless it is consistent with the standard of TRUTH. This makes “existence” a concept, not a “thing” which has “primacy”. Whatever exists must be QUALIFIED as existing FIRST, and this takes consciousness (the ability to know (rationally) SELF from NOT SELF). When I say consciousness creates existence I mean it in just that way: consciousness is required to qualify ANY abstraction as being true–that is, affirming and perpetuating the standard of TRUTH, individual human life. And since existence is an abstraction (concept…what have you), then it cannot axiomatically “exist” any more than “blue”, “red”, “up”, “time”, or “Maytag repair man”.

    “Action cannot occur in a vacuum”. That is because “action”, like “existence” is a concept. Action requires a consciousness to qualify relative movement as “action”, and this requires a SELF, which makes SELF the standard of TRUTH. Existence is not the frame of reference in which all agents move, consciousness is. Your awareness of SELF is the stationary frame of reference for everything. Without this awareness, nothing can exist to you; which is to say that nothing can exist at all.

    If anything, I might concede that consciousness IS existence. Which removes any false notion that either is primary over the other, and the false assumption that they are corollaries. The problem is the pervasive acceptance of time as causal. This makes “cause and effect” the backbone of all arguments, in which each side contradicts itself immediately, and which leads to fruitless discussions about whether existence or consciousness is primary. Irrelevant. Everything which IS is a function of infinity,which makes ALL movement relative, which means that what is observed it MUST be conceptually organized, and this means that consciousness is the seed of all that IS. Awareness of existence is simply saying: I observe ME as distinct from YOU. What is the axiom then? ME, observing.

  7. Which implies the axiom: YOU, observing.

    Existence is not the axiom. Conscious, SELF-aware me and conscious SELF-aware you, engaged in relative existence using an agreed upon construct of systematic conceptual abstractions in service to the mutual perpetuation and affirmation of our respective infinite and INDIVIDUAL selves. That is the axiom.

  8. Well, the moment we start our metaphysics by saying the consciousness comes first this is—by definition— a primacy of consciousness formulation. And then when we talk of “proving” existence we walk into the fundamental problem of misapplying an epistemological concept into metaphysics. Metaphysics deals with axioms but to speak of “proof” is to speak of facts . . . which is an appeal to the objective identity of entities . . . . which are—also by definition—the particulars of existence. So to look for proof is to appeal to existence to inform consciousness.

    Consciousness is the faculty for perceiving something. A consciousness without content is a contraction. It is not possible to perceive consciousness qua consciousness. The only way to perceive consciousness is as consciousness of some content. And the only source of content is existence.

    As for David Hume … what I find fascinating is your response is very similar Hume’s argument. You have arrived at his conclusion from a different angel but the conclusion is the same as Hume’s theory of causation.

    Hume argued that man’s mind puts events together as causal, but in fact there was no necessary causation between cause and effect. A does not cause B. A and B are not related, but Man’s perceptions impute qualities that do not exist. Man has no perceptual access to necessary connection. The relationship between cause and effect was a function of man’s “Imagination.”

    What we actually see in existence is a floating bundle of qualities. If we look away and then look back, it is not the same bundle but in fact a different bundle of qualities. What puts the qualities together into an entity is our perceptions. What we really experience is a succession of different bundle of qualities. So as you walk down the street each thing you actively look at is created before your eyes. When you look away they scatter. When you look back the reassemble and our mind abstracts the connection.

    So of course this leads to the inevitable conclusion that reality is merely the moment to moment abstraction of human perception, but entities do not really exist. They are merely a function of human induction. So of course Hume then arrived at the same conclusion you have.

    “This means that all effects are really rooted in the infinite essence of their material. And if interactions are a function of infinity, then there is no such actual thing as “cause and effect”. For cause and effect to be efficacious, consciousness is required to mitigate the infinity, otherwise cause and effect, like every other concept, is meaningless.”

    Hume also thought Cause and Effect meaningless. And then he took his ideas to their logical conclusion. There is no existence qua existence. What we call existence—in all its inducted abstraction—is created by man’s perceptions.

    It is not exactly your formulation, but it is very similar.

  9. Hmm…

    Okay.

    I do not concede cause and effect is ACTUAL because I do not concede that time is causal. With that in mind, I am hoping to convince you that I am not arguing that consciousness is creative, but rather, is able to make what has been created of relevant, efficacious meaning (which includes the qualification of “existence”, which is a concept, not a thing); for as I said, that assumes a cause and effect relationship based on the assumption that temporal existence is in fact “truth”. Show me where David Hume argues that time itself is merely a concept and has no causal power over existence and consciousness and perhaps I will cede you the comparison. I make no distinction between the material body (the brain) and the consciousness as though the consciousness must “exist” BEFORE the the body, or vice versa. I have repeatedly denied this interpretation, yet I am still accused of it. Further, since none of us can observe our own consciousness, it is pointless (and impossible) to try to apply a corollary relationship between consciousness and existence, so I do not try. A point I made in my last comment. You are arguing from that relationship, as though it is demanded. I am not…I have denied it.

    The crux of this debate is: Is existence actual or is existence is a concept. The problem for your argument is that for you to concede that existence precedes consciousness you must first argue how existence can even be qualified as such without consciousness (the awareness of SELF). But as soon as you argue consciousness must be conscious of something FIRST and that something is “existence”, you have contradicted yourself; because you offer the argument from the inexorable frame of reference of your conscious self (YOU, defined and KNOWN by you as John Immel). The moment you try to argue that you don’t need to be conscious in order to exist, or for anyone or anything else to exist either, you have already lost the debate. Why? Because it is impossible to argue that or anything else absent your conscious frame of reference. Your consciousness SELF is the root vehicle you use to promote your views, not your “existence”.

    The second hurdle you must overcome is, again, the presumption that time is causal. Which is an impossible argument to make. All material things at their root are infinite, which means that the only thing which can mitigate reality and organize it into a (relative) frame of reference known as “existence” is consciousness, which is the ability of the human SELF to be aware of itself as distinct from NOT SELF. This is the infinite and inexorable frame of reference and context for EVERY argument. Without consciousness, you don’t exist to state your case on this blog. To argue the converse is to somehow state that existence exists whether you are conscious of it or not; but of course you need to be conscious to make such a claim in the first place. So…not sure how you get there.

    “Hume also thought Cause and Effect meaningless. And then he took his ideas to their logical conclusion. There is no existence qua existence. What we call existence—in all its inducted abstraction—is created by man’s perceptions.”

    Your comparison of my views on cause and effect to David Hume’s are not correct. I never said that cause and effect are meaningless, nor did I state they are an illusion. I said that without consciousness, the abstract CONCEPT of “cause and effect” is meaningless. If one is conscious, however, then all concepts, including “cause and effect” have meaning, because they can be observed to perpetuate and affirm the standard of TRUTH, the SELF of the Individual.

    You’re equating my denial of the actuality of things like time, space, cause, effect, etc.,with “meaninglessness”. But I have repeatedly on my blog argued that it is impossible to declare anything meaningless which can be observed to promote the standard of TRUTH. But yes, in order for them to have meaning, man must employ the concepts for the promotion of his SELF; and to employ concepts must certainly imply consciousness. That is a massive distinction, and frankly, I’m surprised you missed it.

    I do not equate consciousness with perceptions (and I presume you link perceptions to passions). I do not concede that consciousness can be relative. Consciousness is rooted in observation from an objective frame of reference of SELF. If it is objective then what it observes, in order to be reasonably/rationally argued (the argument for existence, which is NOT existence qua existence, you’ll notice) must be efficaciously defined TO that frame of reference. Which would make it impossible to assume that the material reality I observe (“existence”) is merely a product of man’s perception. It is real. But how it is organized and thus is efficacious (having relevant meaning) IS conceptual, which means that consciousness is required before “existence” can be relevant; thus, before existence can be “true”.

    If existence exists, it must exist TO something, or it is irrelevant.

    I seriously doubt I have much in common with David Hume, as you continue to suppose. I dare say next you’ll accuse me of being a Calvinist. Are you David Brainerd? LOL 🙂

  10. What is the standard of TRUTH, as you define it? What is that plumb line by which you can know that all you believe or assume or know can be efficaciously and rationally declared true (or false)? Without having a standard of TRUTH, your argument is left wide open. And further, if you concede the standard is “existence”, then you have removed SELF from the existence equation, since awareness of self is not, according to you, necessary for you to exist. And with that, you have just ceded the argument to the collectivists.

    There are only two options: Either the standard of TRUTH is the SELF, and that self must be conscious or it can have no efficacious or relevant definition, by definition…meaning it cannot possibly know it is a SELF, and therefore cannot possibly define “existence”. Or it is something NOT SELF. If you say it is “existence”, then you presume that what exists, which is dominated by everything OUTSIDE of you–and so gets to define existence, because your consciousness has been removed from the equation–gets to be the standard of TRUTH for you. Which of course means that YOU are in fact irrelevant to truth. Which is the argument of the very philosophies you oppose.

    And therein lies the irony.

    Summary:

    In your attempt to argue a primacy of existence case, you imply that the existence which is prime is not the existence of YOU, your SELF, per se, because you deny that consciousness is required for YOUR existence…you don’t need to be aware of you to BE you. Thus,your opponents will claim that THEY get to define your existence FOR you, since you, again, are not requiring consciousness to inform an efficacious existence of your own SELF. They will say that THEY have the divine mandate from He/She/It which “created your existence”, which does not require YOU at all (as a conscious, and therefore relevant, agent), and thus you are obligated to submit to their special position as God’s/the State’s proxy.

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