Monthly Archives: October 2014

Part Eight of: Collectivist Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal

“So who are you?  Or more to the point, who knows you? You’ve probably allowed very few people to know the real you, warts and all.  Everyone else is presented with an image you’ve managed to create.  And you aren’t the only one.  Somewhere along the line we all learn to pretend.  We adopt society’s idea of what a successful person is and we spend a lot of time trying to protect that image. We drive cars we can’t afford.  We pad our resumes.  We smile.  We act happy and teach our kids to do the same.  We work hard to make people believe we have it all together.”

(p. 24, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Now, pay close attention, because this paragraph is a beautiful example of the evil deception which passes for “truth” and “sound doctrine” in the Christian church today.  It is a sleight of hand…a nod to the individual while at the same time making the point that the individual is not only–or, in a sense, not really–a reprobate, but is a full on lie.  The lie of hell, and we all are born convinced of it.

What this is here is a collectivist proselyte drawing an impossible line from a brooooad fucking generalization to an unknowable particular.  Which makes the generalization worthless; which makes the point worthless; which makes the message worthless.  Welcome to “orthodox” Christianity, Reformed style, in 2014 America.

Generalizations cannot equal specifics by definition…let’s just get that shit out of the way right now. And so generalizations, since we are all individuals, cannot ultimately define the nature of human existence.  But when you proceed from a metaphysical assumption that is decidedly collectivist–for example, ALL human beings are “fallen”; ALL human beings are “pervasively and totally depraved”; ALL have sinned (and I must disagree with Paul here, at least if he is arguing that “sin” is a direct function of our categorical metaphysical error)–then there is no such thing as the individual.  Therefore, there is no such thing as a specific…everything–all reality–is an extension/function of broad generalization.  The “individual” is a lie; a farce; an illusion.  The “real” you, to which this paragraph is referring, isn’t REAL at all.  That’s their whole fucking point here.  The “real” you is the you you only THINK is real, because your very nature demands that you reject the “truth” of the group God has called you to–you are rebellious by nature–and live in a purely make-believe fantasy world of free will, individual choice, and your singular, individual, mind.

On another note, a cursory glance around you reveals this paragraph to be a lie with respect to some of its examples concerning behavior.  We do NOT all drive cars we cannot afford.  My truck is a 1996, bought and paid for, costing pennies for insurance.  My new little car for driving the girls around was a third of what an average mid-sized sedan costs.  My wife’s car is a 2005 with a hundred thousand miles.  Neither I , nor my wife, have ever driven a car we cannot afford. So, even on the basis of a single individual, myself, and a single example–the car–I can declare this paragraph false and its author a liar.

I know people who rarely smile.  I don’t teach my kids to “act” happy but to BE happy by understanding their inherent SELF (i.e. individual) worth as human beings, and their inalienable right to own the full sum and substance of their own minds, bodies, and property; and that only the sad, confused, manipulated, victimized, and oppressed will allow some high school drop out tell them what to do with themselves and their money and where to live and go and what to eat and drink simply because the asshole happens to stand in front of a podium and claim he has been “called” to “stand in God’s stead” FOR Him and TO them, while at the same time, by the metaphysics and epistemology he teaches, declaring that there is absolutely no way he can actually prove this.  They just have to take his fucking word for it.  It’s called “faith” he says.  You have to agree with him before you understand him.

Nonsense.  Plain and simple.

Lies upon lies and more lies on top of that.  Lies is the “orthodoxy” of the church today, and they have gotten very, very good at it, as this little neo-collectivist primer we are discussing proves.

But that’s not really the point of this paragraph now, is it?  No.  The point isn’t to proclaim that you are some poor misunderstood sinner who eeks and scratches out a miserable, tortured existence in the quiet still of a barren, cold room in the dark …alone and a liar.  No.  The point of this paragraph is, as I have discussed, to explain that YOU, yourself, don’t really exist.  That this “person” you must lie about in order to get along in “society” (whatever the fuck that is…”society” eats an awful lot of shit, and takes a lot of blame for something that an abstract concept cannot possibly be guilty of, because it doesn’t actually exist)…yes, that this person you must lie about in order to get along in “society” is simply dream.  And the reason you MUST lie about yourself is because your SELF, itself, is a complete lie.  In order to proclaim that there is a YOU which defies the “truth” of the collectivist metaphysic you are forced to lie about it. That’s because “you” are really evil, the concept, such as it is in its absolute, infinite singularity.  And as such, and by definition, YOU cannot be observed as distinct from the evil which is you.  You pretend and perform for the crowd like a monkey on a leash dancing to the organ grinder’s tune because that’s your nature.  You are LIE.  You are the FORCE of DEPRAVITY.  There is no real individual human being which can exist within it thus.

The only way for “you” to arise, then–that is, as not a full on lie–is to manifest as an extension of a group…the “real” group.  The one that God “really” likes.  And that, of course, is the neo-Reformed, neo-Calvinist juggernaut we see forming ever more rapidly from sea to shining sea, and beyond, preaching the same satanic lies it always has, from that day of its medieval spawning to this.  And here, of course, is where the metaphysics get a bit muddy (well…they are always muddy, its just that the scum is now rising to the surface, forming an oily sheen, where it is more easily observed):  If there is no you, then how can YOU be integrated into the group?

Punt!  And, as John Immel says, out goes the contradiction into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”.  For here, at this point, you simply have to trust your resident, local “man of God”; that when he says God is “calling” “you” to this group of “fellow sinners” to His “glory” so that through collective navel gazing and wailing and lamenting your absolute and categorical inability to do anything God can be pleased with, because He hates your very guts and only deigns to tolerate “you” because of His Son.  Who, for some reason died on a Roman cross for an infinitely vile scum-eating, blithering dickhead like yourself, who is and was and will continue to be a product of his own infinite metaphysical depravity and general existential assholery (which makes Christ’s sacrifice the greatest act of irrational behavior in world history, but, whatevs…).  Yes, just take your pastor’s word for it, he explains.

Of course, this begs the following question:

How can you take his word for it if there is no YOU?




Cause Plus Effect Always Sums to Zero, Therefore “Cause and Effect” is Not Actual, it is Conceptual: Why “cause and effect” is purely a human cognitive notion used to organize what man observes, and is not a “force” which governs how material reality interacts

This will be a short post, because this is fairly simple to explain…well, it is now, after boiling down a very long hand-written post to its salient and self-evident points.

Cause and effect are mutually exclusive ideas…that is, what is the cause cannot also, simultaneously, be the effect; and what is effect cannot also be the cause.  Each notion has an absolute definition which must remain consistent in order for “cause and effect” to have any meaning in the first place.  At the same time each notion depends on the other for its value and relevancy.  What this means is that the cause is not actually a cause without an effect.  There is no such thing as a cause with no effect, by definition; and the converse is also true.  So, in other words, each notion obtains its value and meaning as a direct function of the other.

For instance, a cause is only able to be defined as a cause and observed as a cause via the effect, which makes the cause merely a direct extension of the effect, which I have already explained must be absolute (i.e. the effect is absolutely and utterly the effect…it cannot simultaneously be a cause).  And this renders any actual distinction between cause and effect impossible.  The distinction is purely conceptual; a product of the human capacity to conceptualize what he or she observes. The converse, naturally, would also be true.  An effect is only able to be defined and observed and identified as an effect via the cause; its value and relevancy a function of the cause, therefore making the effect merely a direct extension of the cause; and the cause must be absolute (i.e. a cause cannot simultaneously be an effect).

This renders any actual distinction between cause and effect impossible.  Such a distinction can only be made conceptually, as a product of the human conceptualizing brain, which is uniquely able to organize the environment in such a way.

And from here you can see why the title of this article makes sense.  “Cause” and “effect” are both everything (i.e. absolutes, which must possess a consistent and ineluctable definition at any given moment) and nothing (i.e. each one deriving its value and relevancy as a direct function of the other, rendering each one a direct extension of the other, thereby making moot both concepts altogether).  Everything and nothing are mutually exclusive, which means that everything and nothing cannot possibly be the existential state of any object or force in question.

To write the equation mathematically, everything is 1, and nothing is zero.  1 x 0 = 0.  The product of both “cause” and “effect” separately is zero.  And thus when you couple them together as “cause and effect”, or rather, cause plus effect, in order to complete the notion, you get, presented abstractly, 0 + 0.  Which of course equals zero.

The point is to show that cause and effect is not an actuality…is not a causal force which somehow, outside of man’s conceptualizing brain and therefore his life, exists as some actual, tangible, efficacious objective reality and causal power.  But rather, the material universe is what it is, and it is a singularity, not ruled by “laws of nature” or other forces which are in reality human-derived concepts, much like “cause and effect”, and another one of my favorite punching bags, “chance” (which we will look at later).  The material universe, being an infinite singularity, makes all objects within it likewise infinite singularities, parsed and given meaning and relevancy and truth by those who possess observation coupled with an innate ability to make a conceptual distinction between SELF and OTHER (whatever object or objects are observed to be NOT SELF).  And thus, truth is a function of the truly self-aware agent: God and Man.

He who is able to know and define SELF as SELF is the Standard of Truth for all which is observed; and is likewise he who gives value to everything in the universe, and is the most valuable.

Reason thus demands that all castes and hierarchies, and distinctions of all sorts, must inevitably crumble under the weight of infinite individual human worth.  Because these castes and hierarchies and distinctions are not actual, they are conceptual.  Therefore all human beings can only be judged according two things:  their own self-ascribed values, and how they wish to freely exchange those values as a function of their individual attributes and desires (excepting, of course, the decidedly irrational desire to exploit and violate a fellow human being, or God).  In this sense, then, one having “judged”, has not been in the least judgmental.

“I, Depravity.” (Part Seven of: Collectivist Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal)

“As we learned in the last session, your spiritual progress is directly related to your relationships…

If the group’s goal is to make progress spiritually, then it makes sense to find out where you are now.  And figuring out where you are means taking a hard look at who you are and who you are not.”

(p. 23, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Notice here, once again, that “spiritual progress” is only a function of “your relationships”…which means “the group”, which is a full on collectivist mentality.  Which is always destruction and death and misery by way of collectivist philosophy, which is the root of all of the horrors and abuse ever wrought upon the world, from Kim Jung-un to Caligula to the Babylonian Captivity.  It will undoubtedly be the philosophy of Gog and Magog.

Since spiritual progress is thus group progress, and group progress is the only legitimate existential progress (by way of logical extension of the premise), one’s life, it must be assumed, must be completely submitted to the group, period.  And again, with one being unable to state this often enough, this is collectivist (commonly, “Marxist”) philosophy in pure, uncut form.

“As we learned in the last session, your spiritual progress is directly related to your relationships.”

Yet more affirmation of the group metaphysic.  The orthodox notion of “total depravity” means that individuals are depravity itself…that depravity is, in fact, each individual’s metaphysical absolute.  This being the case, there is really no autonomous “self” by which anyone can reference their life’s context and content.  You are depravity, which is absolute.  As such, there is nothing apart from you which you can claim untainted and untouched by depravity.  And again, since you are depravity itself, there is nothing else to you.  Your body and mind are illusions…you observations and thoughts, beliefs and assumptions are facades.  Your depravity is absolute, which means it is infinite, which means there is nothing else besides.  The phrase then “I am depraved”, is false.  There is no “I” anywhere in the existential equation.  There is no separation between “I” and “depraved”.  The more accurate rendering of the phrase–that is, more in keeping with the philosophical assumptions of orthodox Christianity (which is basically all of Christianity today)–is “I, Depravity”.

You see, “I”, as distinct from your evil,  is the great lie…the whore of your mind, and it needs to be stoned to death by the group in service to “your” liberation; what they call “salvation”.  Of course, the question begged is that if there is no such thing as you, because there is no separation between you and Depravity, then just who is getting “saved”?

The answer? The group alone is “saved”.  Which makes the purpose of your individual self this: elimination in service to the group.  And who is the group?  Those who are in charge, period.  The authority, which is God’s proxy here on earth.  Or, in other words, God, Himself, as far as you are concerned.

And this is why I laugh so hard when I see Christians on television wringing their hands about the swath of death and dismemberment being wreaked upon the middle east by the carriers of Islamic world plague.  The only difference between Christian “orthodoxy” and the Islamic fascist hordes is that the Islamic fascist hordes have no compunction about taking their assumptions to their logical conclusion:  believe or die, infidel.


Depravity represents a categorical force of evil, which possesses no legitimate consciousness or awareness of SELF.  It is blind…instinctive, and pitted against the group by its mere nature, rendering you, as an individual, an animal of sorts.  A monster of pure, unrestrained apostasy and vice.  Unthinking, unknowing, unloving.  Having no real consciousness then (and for the moment we will forgo discussing the fact that absolute and infinite depravity must be fundamentally equal to and the moral equivalent of God, Himself, making current Christian theology the wide road, ironically, to hell)…yes, having no real consciousness then, the individual, representing absolute depravity, has no rational nor functional nor efficacious epistemology; that is, he or she cannot know anything…cannot apprehend truth of any kind.  All existence (self) and all truth (understanding) can only come about via the wholesale destruction of the individual in service to the collective.  Therefore, only by complete integration to the group, with the full expectation of the death of SELF being the inevitable price of inclusion, does the individual have access to “life” (and this is ironic beyond words…not to mention a full on contradiction in terms).  Alone, you are literally nothing at all.

Stay tuned for part seven.

The Fork in the Existential Road: Good and Evil are separated by mutually exclusive existential notions, and all philosophies are either one or the other

There are really only two ways to describe the nature of the material universe; and this divergence is the root of all philosophical disagreements, and ultimately, of all wars and other violent conflicts.

Let’s discuss Option A and Option B.

Option A is to consider all objects, including man, to be the absolute source–or ABILITY–of their own existence, and the singularity of all of their actions and reactions. In other words, at the root of all cause, effect, space, time, distance, speed, etcetera is the object itself.

So, in the case of cause and effect, for example, one might say that an object IS its own cause and its own effect. It causes upon another object because of its root ABILITY to cause upon; and it is caused upon by another object because of its own root ABILITY to be caused upon. A tennis ball hits a racket because IT is ABLE to hit the racket; and the racket strikes the tennis ball in return because the ball is ABLE to be struck by the racket. The ball itself is the root of why it can both hit and be hit; it is ABILITY. The apple is on the tree because it is ABLE to be on the tree; and the apple falls to the ground, not because of gravity but because it is ABLE to be caused upon by gravity. That is, without the ABILITY of the apple to exist, and this absolutely of itself, neither the tree nor gravity could have any effect on it. Gravity, in other words, is not the real cause of the apple’s falling. The real and singular cause of the apple’s falling is the innate ABILITY of the apple to fall in the first place. Existence is completely of the apple, and existence is a prerequisite to any other object or “force” possessing any influence upon it.

The same could be argued for time and space; distance and speed, and so on. The reason an object exists at a specific time in a specific location or moves at a specific velocity because it possesses the innate ABILITY to do so. This makes the root of ALL of these forces the object itself. That is, any given object IS its own time and its own space; its own cause and its own effect. All of these forces then are and can only be direct functions of the object; which means that the object’s infinite and absolute ABILITY to be what it is, is the source of how and why it can be observed to possess any physical property or move in any specific way. This then relegates physical laws, or the laws of physics/nature, to mere conceptual descriptions of the object as it exists relatively to another object or other objects at any given moment.  And I say “relatively” because an object’s ability to exist must be absolute and infinite.  That is, its existence is a function of its infinite ABILITY to be whatever it is. Since it IS, its IS, which is merely a derivative of its ABILITY to be, must be infinite; must be absolute. To declare otherwise is to declare that the object exists not of its own ABILITY to be, but as a function of something else. That is, its ABILITY is not its own, it is of something OTHER…something outside of itself.  Which means that it really isn’t itself at all, but is something else. And this view makes all objects merely a function of some other thing…and so nothing which which is said to exist really exists at all.  Everything is something that it is NOT; which means that everything is really nothing. That is, objects we observe to be aren’t really what they seem. They are an extension of whatever it is which allows them to be (which is wholly unknowable, and we’ll discuss this in a bit); which of course removes the objects from the existential equation all together.

So, the idea that all objects are their own singularities…the root source of why they can cause and be caused upon, or have time and space and speed and distance and mass and temperature and so on, makes the metaphysical irreducible primary of all objects their own ABILITY; that is, themselves, as a function of their ABILITY to be however and whatever they are observed to be.

This of course makes the observer…

Well, wait…let’s define “observer”.

An observer is he who possesses, as a direct function of his own ABILITY to be, the ABILITY to be aware that he is, which demands that he likewise possess the ABILITY to be aware of what he is NOT, which demands the ABILITY to observe both himSELF and what he is NOT.  And this means that there will be an immediate mitigation of the infinite of himSELF into relatively finite relationships with another object or other objects he must observe as he likewise observes himSELF. For there is no ABILITY to observe one’s SELF from what he is NOT if what is he is NOT is not observed.

What I am attempting to explain is that the root of all objects is the infinite SELF of the object; or, the infinite, indivisible, inseparable ABILITY to be what it is, and that this infinity is only parsed by an observer…that is, man, who, as a function of his own ABILITY to be is ABLE to know that he is, and that this demands then that he know what he is NOT. And it is thus through man’s awareness of him SELF that the infinite is made relatively finite, and from this is derived an efficacious reality.

This of course makes man the reference for all TRUTH. The SELF of man then is the source of all concepts which must be employed in order to organize the infinite “relative finity” which he observes into a cohesive conceptual framework so that he can propagate and perpetuate his own SELF as the Standard of what is TRUE and thus what is GOOD. This then makes notions such as time, space, distance, speed, up, down, etcetera merely a part of man’s conceptual framework by which he organizes the objects he observes in order to serve him SELF; because it is by him SELF and only him SELF that anything has any meaning or relevancy at all. Beyond the conceptual framework of man’s ABILITY to know SELF from OTHER there can be no TRUTH. “Objective reality” then, being a concept, is rooted, like everything else, in the absolute standard of TRUTH and MORALITY which is man’s life. Outside of man’s life there can be no such thing as “objective” or “reality” or “objective reality”, because absent he who is ABLE to make the distinction between what he IS from what he is NOT there is only the infinite ABILITY of objects to BE, which cannot amount to any separation of objects at all, because ABILITY is infinite, which makes the the objects infinite, and there can be no distinction between infinity (infinity times object A + infinity times object B = infinity) absent the ABILITY to make that distinction; and man alone of all God’s creatures possesses that ABILITY, revealed in his use of language which is entirely conceptual. Man alone makes the conceptual distinction between SELF and NOT SELF. Thus, man alone is the root of TRUTH; and within this TRUTH is the idea of “objective reality”. That is, “objective reality” is only true and only good if it affirms the standard of TRUTH, which is man’s life.

So here we have a summary Option A: Man’s life is the source of reality.

And now, mention this to someone.  Anyone.  And notice how little time it takes for that someone to cry “subjectivity” or “moral relativism”. This is an indication that the detractor does not grasp the argument. Man’s ABILITY to be is inexorably tied to his ABILITY to know he is; and this is inexorably tied to his ability to conceptualize that which he observes, both him SELF (his body) and whatever he is NOT. Which means that man’s ABILITY to be is his ABILITY to conceptualize his existence.  And “objective reality” is indubitably conceptual. You see, without man, “objective reality” is irrelevant TO him, which makes it irrelevant, period.  That is, man’s existence is what makes “objective reality” relevant; is what gives it any truth or meaning.  And if this is the case “objective reality’  cannot be claimed to be either “objective’ or “real” except as man qualifies it and man is affirmed by it.  “Objective reality” is a function of man, not the other way around.

So when we realize that man’s life is the only rational standard of TRUTH and MORALITY (which is sort of redundant because morality is in fact a function of truth, metaphysically speaking) then we have rightly identified the only objective reference for any idea or action.

The truth is that those who preach an “objective reality” outside of man are the real subjectivists (which ironically makes Objectivism in fact, Subjectivism, because it has no rational nor consistent explanation for how it is possible for man to in fact BE man, and therefore to know anything). They are the ones who, at the end of the day, must appeal to mystery as the root of their existential ideas, because knowledge is impossible, and the ABILITY of man to be him SELF is due to “forces” outside of him, which destroys man at the metaphysical level entirely. If you are an Objectivist, you can be forced to concede (unless you are as stubborn as the mystics you deride) that according to your own beliefs, man cannot possibly exist at all.

And, apropos to this, Option B, which is the philosophical root of all evil, and it is by far the most common view with respect to how existence and the universe are understood.

Which is…depressing, really.


In this instance, reality is defined this way: Objects are not in and of themselves the singular sources of their own existence. Their ABILITY to be is not a direct derivative of themselves, but is a direct function of something outside of them…beyond them. That they are an absolute effect, and some external force or thing is the absolute cause. Now, this makes the existence of the material universe wholly dependent on these external (and thus unobservable) forces which create it. In other words, objects in the universe have no singular innate ABILITY to be what they are. Their ABILITY to exist, to cause and be caused upon, etcetera, is not in fact their own, but belongs to some other force or agent which, again, exists wholly outside of them. And in this case, of course, “objects”, or “material universe”, includes man.

For the moment, I will avoid a digression into why those who claim that we, and the rest of the material universe, are some kind of “grey area” of existence.  That is, there is no such thing as the kind of “black and white” reality I am discussing; indeed, they recoil at what they perceive as my “either/or” philosophy, arguing that reality is never so starkly divided.  But I will say this:  There is no rational argument for a “gray” existence…that is, there is no rational argument for one who argues that man is a conglomerate of him SELF and the forces of nature/the “sovereign Will” of God which govern/determine him.  For I submit that no one who professes such a perspective can tell you just where each component to man, or any other object, begins and ends.  Ask them to tell you just where man ends and “God’s Will”, or the “laws of physics” begin.  I promise, you will get nothing but the “mystery” argument, if they bother to answer you at all.  In my experience, either subterfuge, ad hominem, or a termination of the discussion altogether is the common response.  The reason for this is because the fact is, whether people are comfortable conceding it or not, reality is black-and-white absolute.  Either an object is it SELF or it is not.  Either man is man or man is not man.  To pretend that a metaphysically distinct singularity can be born of mutually exclusive existential causes is foolishness, nothing more.  To argue that what is–with IS being its metaphysical absolute–is both a product of itself and something outside of it is nonsense.  It cannot be both, period.  If something is itself, it must be of itself.  If it is not of itself completely, then it is not of itself at all.  Which means that it is, in fact, something else…which means it doesn’t actually exist.  If we say that the red rubber ball exists, then the red rubber ball must have the innate ABILITY to exist.  If the ball does not have the ABILITY to in fact be a ball, because it is an absolute function of some unseen force or forces outside of it, then we cannot rationally declare that the red rubber ball exists.  The forces from which it is absolutely derived are the only thing which exists (and these, again, are not observable, which reduces “objective reality” to subjective nothingness).  The red rubber ball is a phantom…a lie.

Moving on.

In various religions, it is “god” or the “gods” which cause all things to be; which is the singular ABILITY allowing for the “presence” of the objects in the universe. In atheism and atheistic philosophies, it is the “laws of nature” or the “laws of physics”. Occasionally you will meet a religious scientist who claims that both “god” and the “laws of physics” are causal; or that “god” created the laws of physics, which are then causal. Not only are both of these perspectives redundant, they also defy any rational explanation.

Attempting to be as laconic as is possible (for me), I will point out the fundamental weakness of the perspective that all material objects including man are a function of either the sovereignty of “god” or  “gods”, or the “laws of nature”:

Those who promote such an existential viewpoint are obligated to explain just how man, whose existence is a full extension of forces outside of himself, is able to exist at all, let alone know anything and therefore promote a specific philosophy or idea, or criticize another as being false. By their very own metaphysical definition, man is NOT HIMSELF. Man is merely a direct function of some other absolute, like “god” or the “laws of nature”, which determines the entire sum and substance of his existence, which must include his thoughts, beliefs, and actions. For if you cannot separate the body from the forces which utterly compel it, then you cannot separate the mind from those same forces; and this is because it is impossible to make a rational distinction between the body and the mind. The mind and the body are effectively the exact same thing. You possess no observation, no thought, no feeling apart from your body. Those “out-of-body” experiences you hear about? What is the singular reference for them…that is, how does the person know that this experience is “out of” body? Because they have a body as the absolute reference for their existence. If they didn’t have a body, they could not qualify the experience as “out-of-body” in the first place. It is the body which is the absolute reference for all we know and feel and do. Everything we experience is a direct function of our bodies, period.

And I submit that “out-of-body” experiences are all fictitious and irrational anyway. Without a body, there is no YOU. If you observe, then you must be SOMETHING. There must be a distinction between you and what you observe. And that SOMETHING which is observing, is your body. No one knows anything apart from a material manifestation of SELF. A mind needs a body with senses, otherwise there is nothing it can know.

So if the things man observes are inexorably governed and caused by unobservable forces which utterly determine them, and man is likewise a material object subject to those same forces, and thus his brain, which is his mind and thoughts, is also subject to those same relentless, determining forces, then how is it possible that any man can rise above these absolute forces of “objective reality’ and proclaim that he knows of them? By his own existential definition there is no HIM to know. Both he and what he knows or believes has nothing to do with him, but are merely another extension of the forces which compel all things as functions of themselves. And therefore there is no such thing as “objective reality” because there is no such thing as anything at all. Any idea or belief or notion is purely an illusion…awareness of SELF is a lie; a phantom. There is no man, so there is no one to claim that “objective reality” has any relevancy or meaning at all.

And enter the mystics, who claim to have somehow, by divine inspiration, risen above their metaphysical, illusory ether to know this or that or the other thing, and to proclaim “truth”. And just how they do this or know these things is…well…who can say? Only they know. You cannot understand because it defies reason, and because you are not them.

And from this we get moral equivalency, and from moral equivalency we get all manner of death and destruction and horror.