The root cause of every act of violence is a lie, where “lie” is defined as an idea/assertion/assumption/premise which cannot be explained with categorical rational consistency (that is, a complete and utter absence of contradiction).
Monthly Archives: May 2016
Existence Cannot Accomodate Relative Relationship, Which Means it Cannot be the Metaphysical Primary: Why Objectivism fails, and has, unfortunately.
If existence is the metaphysical primary, then all things which have existence must possess EQUAL existence qua existence. And these things which equally exist are either absolutely exclusive of each other, each possessing its own UTTER existence, in which case there can be no shared existence, in which case the existence of each thing is its own infinite singularity, making it impossible to define those things which are said to exist, because there are no relative relationships possible by which one thing can be defined as “this” which is not “that”, which is how anything is known and has meaning and relevancy; or they share a root existence which fundamentally, at its most basic essence, is all encompassing, and in equal absolute measure, in which case the existence of each object is merely a function of a singular, infinite existence, making it impossible to define those things which are said to exist, because there are no relative relationships possible.
More concisely: Relativity is absolutely necessary to define those things which are said to exist, and existence as a metaphysical primary is incompatible with relativity.
Aphorism of the Day: An act of government is an expression of government; and an expression of government is an extension of government.
If it takes an act of government to limit government then…
…government can never be limited by an act of government.
Why Authority (Violence as the Primary Means of Achieving Objectives) is a Direct Function of Determinism
The primary ethic and politic of determinism is authoritarianism. That is, once individual Will becomes merely an inexorable effect of a Singularity of Cause which decides all purpose, be it God, or Natural Law/Scientific Empiricism, Existence (what “is” as its own end, where “Existence” must necessarily subordinate all other definitions of all objects, rendering their distinctions moot), or Social/Cultural Construction, or any other garden variety ideal like the Common Good, the Underprivileged, etcetera etcetera, then man cannot by definition act purposefully, on his own, to any relevant, rational, or moral objective, regardless of how this objective may be defined. Thus, all knowledge and purpose can only be ascribed to some kind of transcendent (and rationally impossible) revelation according to those who proclaim themselves the ecclesiastical (ruling according to “spiritual” mandate) recipients of the “Wisdom” or “Truth” of the Great Cause (the Singularity of Cause). Examples of this can be found in religious leaders who claim divine rulership according to “God’s Calling”, the Representatives of States who claim to act on behalf of the “People” or the “Common Good”, or Intellectual elites who claim natural insight or acumen with respect to the “language of the Universe”, where the universe speaks in the arcane vernacular of mathematics, statistical analysis, genetic and evolutionary processes, various research methodologies, etcetera, etcetera. In all of these cases, Truth, and thus necessarily all that Is, is a function of an abstract ideal which causes absolutely, and therefore categorically determines all that man does, and thus, by definition, all that man thinks. Man then can only be compelled and controlled by force (violence), since he possesses no real capacity for self-awareness and therefore no capacity for self-control. He cannot think, therefore he cannot choose. And therefore he must be ruled–and absolutely so, by those who DO think, and DO know: those, again, who are the self-proclaimed extensions of the Determining (Singularity of) Cause. In other words, they rule you, because they are, as far as you are concerned, indistinguishable from that which determines you.
Aphorism of the Day: You are, you can, you’re good
To understand that you are, instead of aren’t; that you can, instead of can’t…is to understand that you are good, instead of evil.
Why It’s Mostly About Winning Debates, Not Convincing
How many people assume that reason–rational consistency, which is conceptual consistency–really forms the substratum of what they believe? Well, all that is needed to answer this question, more or less, is a cursory look around at the litany of metaphysical assertions which almost categorically abound in human thinking…at least in the West, which is my frame of reference and likely yours, too:
The laws of physics govern (read, determine)…
Man is totally depraved in his nature…
Man needs a society rooted in the rule of law (read, man NEEDS governing)…
Space is real (the absence of a thing is itself a thing)…
And on and on.
I would put the number of people who interpret reality apart from one or another of these philosophical fundamentals at maybe 2%. Which means that 98% of the time that a truly rationally consistent person is engaged in a debate within the coliseum of ideas with another person it is a match, not a discussion. That is, the goal can only be to win, not recruit a fellow thinker. Because those who have not already, themselves, decided that there must be a plumb line of reason–pure conceptual consistency–cannot be convinced of their fallacy in a debate concerning issues which follow the root premise–that is, the metaphysical premise of how truth is defined which is either through pure reason, or in spite of it. And here’s the trick: EVERYTHING follows the root premise. Even discussions of the root premise must share a rationally consistent framework in order to result in one party being convinced of their intellectual error.
Now, all of this begs the question: how do you win?
The long answer is: you don’t. The short answer is that there is only one way to win, where it must be understood that it is “win” with a lower case “w”. And it involves simply making your opponent unable to continue the debate with any pretense of objectivity; and making this fact so glaringly obvious to even themselves that they have no choice but to abandon the issue and go and seek easier audiences for the acceptance of their ideas.
So how is this done? Simple. Find the nearest contradiction…I assure you one won’t be far. And then proceed to bind them with it. Because you see, it is at the place of contradiction where concepts no longer have any meaning. And where concepts have no meaning, words are irrelevant. And so contradiction is the place where it is no longer possible for them to say anything. Which doesn’t mean they stop talking. It just means that they will stop saying anything, if you get what I mean.
And at that point, if they are sane, they will stop talking. And if they don’t, then you, if you are sane, will stop talking.
And then it’s over, and you have won.
Aphorism of the Day: The pointlessness of voting is implicit in the paradox of the right to vote
If the right to vote is a function of the people–individuals for whose sake the State exists–then the State can rationally claim no authority over them, in which case there is no point in voting. But if the right to vote is a function of the State, then the State must claim absolute authority over them, in which case there is no point in voting.
You Cannot Limit Government by Elections: Why any candidate promising to limit government is lying, either knowingly or unknowingly
The election of someone to a governmental position is, BY DEFINITION, an expansion of their power, not a limitation of it. And since all of government is made up of PEOPLE who expand their power at the very moment of their appointment, it is impossible that we should observe the limitation of Government, its Authority and Power, by electing people to office.
Impossible. It’s not subjective. It’s not arguable. It’s not partisan. It’s not contextual. I make this claim unemotionally. It simply IS the truth.
There is Such a Thing as an Impossible Miracle (it’s not redundant)
A miracle is not impossible; however, a miracle which denies the means by which man establishes his identity is.
In other words, there can be no such thing as an unreasonable miracle–a miracle which is not conceptually consistent.
The Infinite Singularity Paradox Solved
There is no conceptual difference between an infinite singularity and an infinite number of relatively moving parts. The difference is that the former is impossible and the latter IS.
unreformingtheology 