Monthly Archives: June 2016
Reason Demands that Truth is Relative
Absolute truth, or Truth qua Truth, is a tautology (and this is true of all abstract concepts when they are said to be a function of themselves), which makes it a contradiction, which means that there is no such thing as absolute truth, which means that all truth then is subject to a reference; and this fact makes truth subjective.
Which means that truth then, and obviously, cannot be objective. On the other hand, the thing which IS objective is truth’s reference.
So…what is the reference?
Well, truth’s reference is he who is asking the question–what, how, why, which, where, etc.. Put another way, it is the Oberver; or, he who is perceiving and then conceptualizing the distinction between himself and NOT himself–or I vs. Environment. This frame of reference then, the frame of reference of I, the Observer, of Self who Percieves from the absolute ontological place of Me, is going to be the epistemological primary; the irreducible reference for defining the Truth of what he observes.
Without this primary, you simply cannot have truth. But it’s more than simply having it, the epistemological primary must be defined reasonably. That is, he who claims to apprehend, to have or know truth, must be defined without contradiction; without indecision; without subjective or rationally unverifiable claims. Without this epistemological primary, defined according to unyielding rational consistency, there can be nothing which is True.
And, naturally, nothing which is false.
In other words, when you have properly, reasonably, answered the question “What is man and how does he know what he knows?”, then, and only then, will you have Truth.
Aphorism of the Day: When Science Distances Itself from Philosophy
The scientist’s rejection of philosophy, specifically metaphysics, means that he believes that science, not the human being, discovers truth.
And the irony is entirely lost on him.
What is Hell?; What is Death?; What is the Worm?
Hell is being Me and not knowing why I am Me in a way which does not make Me an absolute function of that which is outside of Me, and therefore must utterly determine Me, and thus contradict Me. Death is the absence of reason by which I can explain not how I am an effect but why I am the Cause. The insatiable worm is being “I” and yet having no real definition of “I” qua “I”.
Why Only the Individual Can Represent the Moral and Epistemological Standard; and Why Only Voluntarism is Benevolent
It is impossible to accept and embrace cultural or racial differences if the ideology promoting such “acceptance” declares these differences as the very ontological root from which human beings spring. That is, if the metaphysical primary of me is “whiteness” or “secular-ness” and the metaphysical primary of another is “blackness” or “Muslim-ness”, then our relative existences are mutually exclusive. Which means that there can be no acceptance of differences since the differences themselves are absolute. I can no more traverse the chasm of collectivist-identity metaphysics in order to appreciate the perspective of a “different” culture or race than I can appreciate the “perspective” of a softball. There is no common frame of reference, since the very absolute root of what I am (e.g. “White”) is by definition the antipode of the absolute root of the other (e.g. Black).
And because these metaphysical roots are infinitely contrary, I do not actually exist to him and he does not actually exist to me.
Once this philosophy is combined with moral value, necessarily declared and established by the ruling governing Authority, because collectivist value can only be pragmatically realized or made at all relevant through force, there can be no integration of groups; only the categorical elimination (destruction…death) of the imposter. Meaning that if “whiteness” or “secular-ness” is bad and “blackness” or “Muslim-ness” is good then I have become the imposter. I, in assuming that my existence has any value or efficacy, become a rank moral affront to the “good” group. The “lie” of the value of my existence distracts and subtracts from the actual value of the existence of the black man, or the Muslim man, for example. (Which is where, by the way, we get the political phenomenon of “white privilege”…it’s a predictable manifestation of Marxist economics, which is a function of collectivist metaphysics.)
My very presence, my very birth, then, must be regarded as a pervasive sin, the only absolution for which is death. The act of snuffing out my “artificial” life is thus the moral obligation of those in the “true” and “righteous” group. It is the only cure for what has made me so infinitely offensive: the fact that I was born at all.
Now, a plug for voluntarism:
The aforementioned is yet another reason why societies established under the auspices of a central Authority…the State; the Government; the King, always distill down to oppression, exploitation, and economic collapse. As soon as an “Authority” is established to represent “the people”, humanity MUST be defined collectively…and therefore, collectively valued. Which means politics will always, always, always dissolve into a “them” versus “us” mentality, which the violence of the State, wielded by the “true” group, must mitigate. Which means that all such societies will eventually become tyrannies.
Choice and Individual Will cannot by any means or any measure be combined with Force and Collective Need.
Only When the Definition of Man Aligns Can Differences Be Enjoyed
Only when the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical premises are shared can any differences (e.g. racial, cultural) be appreciated. In other words, rational and irrational philosophies are not by definition compatible, but other differences, once philosophies are concomitant, necessarily are.
Why the “Border” Doesn’t Actually Exist as Such to Governments
The State–the Government–cannot rationally recognize any limitation to its power. (And this fact is purely logical, where I define “logic” here as rational consistency.) This is because government is Authority, and Authority is Force. Force qua Force is not compatible with, nor can it fundamentally be subject to, ideas, reason, compromise, Truth, ethics or morality, context, reality, opinions, pragmatism, rights, etc.. In other words, government, at root, is monolithic violence, and thus all of its actions–when all equivocations, paradoxes, and prevarications are distilled down to the logical axioms–are merely the exercise of violence for the sake of violence.
I understand that this is difficult to both accept and to apprehend/comprehend, but the rationally consistent fact is that actions spurred on by authority, by definition, are mutually exclusive of anything requiring the recognition of individual existential/ontological “rights”; that is, the right of the free intellectual and moral agent to utterly own himself and therefore manifest his own singular life according to his own will…and this axiom (that man is only man if there is the corollary of Will) is a metaphysical, ethical, and social primary which necessarily (rationally) demands that all individual interactions with one another be completely voluntary. But as soon as you inject Force via the notion of “governing Authority” into the equation, you have again by definition contradicted all manner of free and voluntary expression. That is, Force and Will are utterly incompatible, because Will requires categorical voluntary interaction in order to actually be willful.
Now, all of this is to say that geopolitical “borders” are of no relevance to government except as a yet another means of asserting its power; an expression of Force, to the infinite expansion of itself. They will be “opened” or “closed” not in service to the sanctity of a nation’s individual citizens, who are also merely a target of its Force, but only in service to its own Infinite Absolute.
So, for those of you scratching you heads at the utter disregard our government has for US border security at the moment, and the persistent demagoguery it displays (along with the left in general, which is the overtly statist of the two major political philosophies) with respect to calling border security advocates racists and imbeciles, now you know why. It is merely pursuing the logical ends of the premises behind it.
What You’re Really Afraid Of, Brother and Sister American
You who are afraid of white nationalism, you aren’t afraid of white nationalism. And you who are afraid of black nationalism, you aren’t afraid of black nationalism. And you who are afraid of radical Islam, you aren’t afraid of radical Islam. And you who are afraid of the Moral Majority, you aren’t afraid of the Moral Majority. And you who are afraid of refugees, you aren’t afraid of refugees. And you who are afraid of socialized medicine, you aren’t afraid of socialized medicine. And you who are afraid of illegal immigration, you aren’t afraid of illegal immigration. And you who are afraid of the socialists, or fascists, or anarchists, or unregulated markets, or corporate bribery, or corporate welfare, you aren’t afraid of…that.
What you are afraid of, is that you will have no choice. You are afraid that when some people get what they want, you will be compelled at gunpoint to take what you don’t want.
What you are afraid of…
And you should be. There is one Master, you see; one State. And those of its children it decides it shall love at any given moment, will be fed its children that it decides it shall hate.
And you are afraid you will be that child.
Why Can’t We Just Leave Politics Out of Our Relationships?
Though politics may be an uncomfortable topic for many, having the potential to rend relationships irreparably in two, or turn a happy Thanksgiving gathering into a screaming hell, knowing someone’s politics can and often is immeasurably important.
This is because it necessarily speaks to one’s interpretation of reality, one’s core ethics and values. And since most people are not prepared to define their metaphysical, epistemological, and moral primaries (they have them, they just can’t articulate them) qua metaphysics, epistemology, and morality, talking politics is, I would argue, a great vehicle for learning them. Because , let’s face it, everyone has has an opinion–an articulated, and generally well thought-out opinion–on politics. Everyone. Even those who insist they don’t almost certainly do.
Political opinions are more than just a window to the soul…to the rocky depths of a person’s entire belief system. They are a giant glass dome which offers a view into the foundational character of a person–a character based upon the philosophical assumptions by which they interpret all of reality, including and especially how they value other people, of which I am one. And how and when I expose myself to philosophical assumptions from which either positive or destructive behaviors will flow towards me is something over which I prefer to have control. Because this is the key to happiness. That is, the key to happiness is avoiding abuse. And abuse is always applied as an extension of the most basic ideas about the nature of reality, and especially the value of others. And one’s politics quickly and easily illuminate these ideas.
Add to that, you and I are not superheroes. We have a very limited amount of emotional and intellectual capital to spend, not to mention time. I’d rather spend it on people who do not hold drastically different assumptions, as those relationships are almost certain to fail, and with that failure will cost me the requisite amount of psychological and emotional fallout.
In 44 years of life never had a good–well, a close–relationship with a leftist–a collectivist: Marxist, socialist, Statist, a communist, or mystic (a religious person whose beliefs are rationally inconsistent…which is most of them). The reason is simple: these people concede something about human nature–at the most basic level; at the level of metaphysics and ontology–that is the categorical antipode of what I believe. This root assumption about humanity–about me–gives meaning and purpose to all they think and do. And because the core beliefs are so utterly different, there is no real compatibility in the relationship, and this must become evident sooner or later. In other words, if your fundamental beliefs are utterly opposed to mine, so must your behavior be also. And that’s behavior which I must, due to the value I place upon myself and truth, avoid to the greatest degree possible.
In other words, it’s hard to play checkers with you if you bring a racket to the table and proceed to swing at the pieces. If we have completely different fundamental ideas, we are playing at completely different games.
So…that’s why politics.
Cause, Effect, and Movement Exist Only by the Cognition of the Observer
The human ability to conceptualize from the frame of reference of the Self is not simply an evolutionary extension of the mathematically determined machinations of an “objective reality outside” of one’s consciousness/cognition, but is integral to objective reality itself, at the most fundamental level. I submit that absent man’s ability to conceptualize the movement of what he observes (that is, man as the Observer) and to establish Self as the reference–as the constant–it is impossible that there is any movement at all, and therefore can be no evolutionary/mathematical “cause and effect” interaction of objects in the material universe.
To claim that there is any such thing as as object movement, or cause and effect interaction, once the observer is removed from the equation is impossible. Because once he who provides the reference by which any such cause and effect interaction and/or object movement has any meaning (including relevancy, purpose, direction, velocity, distance, etc.) there is no rational argument for asserting or believing that it is happening at all in some “objective reality” that can somehow excludes the very thing that gives that reality any value.
In other words, once movement is no longer observed (and by “observed”, again, I mean not only perception, but the cognitive power of conceptualization), movement has no specific context; no reference by which it can be gauged as “movement” qua movement. This means that without a reference, all movement–and therefore all cause and effect interactions and their “mathematical” deterministic mechanisms–is relative not to a specific but to an absolute degree. And absolute relativity of movement–that is, relative interaction with no set reference provided by the conceptualizing observer–means that all movement of all objects “mathematically” sums to zero. Meaning that absolute relativity, by nature, instantaneously nullifies any movement by any object at any given moment. And if all movement in all moments sums to zero because of un-referenced relativity, then there is, in fact, no movement at all; because movement with zero value is the absence of movement, by definition.
For a simple example, let’s take object A and object B in co-existing in a vacuum (where all must exist if we concede a plurality of existence–that things which exist are utterly distinct from one another). Because of the relative nature of movement, existence in a vacuum demands that any movement by A is automatically and instantaneously transferred to B, and vice versa. There is no way in this vacuum, absent an observer, to claim that only A moves, and not B. In other words, because their existence is again necessarily relative, any movement of A is also the movement of B. And by this I mean that B’s movement is not a reciprocal movement; it’s not a corollary movement; it is the same movement; the movement of A is the movement of B. There is one, un-shared movement. B moves equally as A moves as though B were in fact acting categorically as A.
How can this be?
A scenario where two objects with a single movement by both but no reference to measure which object has moved contradicts the plurality of existence between A and B. There can be no interaction between such objects; no distinction. Any action of one is the action of the other…and because existence is an action, even rank co-existence is impossible.
In a vacuum with no observer, object A moving relative to B while B is not moving, demands the corollary that B is moving relative to A while A is not moving; which means it is axiomatic that objects A and B in the instance of any movement must have both moved and also must have both not moved at the same time. And what this means is that movement in such an absolute relative relationship is a context where the movement of objects and the absence of movement by objects are one and the same.
Which is impossible. The integration of mutually mutually exclusive properties (e.g. movement and non-movement) nullifies them both, rendering to them an existential, moral, and rational value of zero; of NOT; of VOID. That is, of a purely abstract, imagined, placeholder status.
The relative context then, and again, necessitates at a fundamental, axiomatic level the conscious perspective of the observer, who is able to conceptualize relative distinctions between objects using himSELF as the reference.
Now, Objectivists and other “empirical” philosophers will almost certainly accuse me of promulgating a Primacy of Consciousness metaphysic, but this is in large part because they suppose that one can separately categorize evidence and reason, which is not actually possible. There can be no objective, empirical evidence which is also a conceptual contradiction. Of course the light wave/particle paradox is often trotted out as a rebuttal to this assertion, but this is easily rebuffed using reason (which I won’t explain here).
I wish to be clear that I am not proposing a purely subjective, “ethereal” metaphysic…and frankly, this is an amateurish criticism. On the contrary, because rational consistency is necessary to the apprehension and definition of Truth, as the above discussion on relativity and movement indicates, it is impossible that one can claim any efficacious philosophical (metaphysics through aesthetics) positions based purely upon subjective standards. This is because subjectivism necessarily equals contradiction. And contradiction is NOT an idea, it is the absence of one.
Further, to argue that the individual conscious observer’s self-evidentiary and necessary inclusion in anything objectively true (self/evident because truth is only known by conscious individuals) is somehow a bias and a liability to reality is the very definition of absurdity. But further discussion of this is better suited to a separate article…the topic is too complex and involved to serve as a side note for this one.
The point of this article is that man’s consciousness–his conceptualizing ability–is much more than a perfunctory extension of some ethereal, evolutionary, determinative force in the “objective” universe–a force which must necessarily contradict itself by spawning such a consciousness in the first place. Rather, it is a fundamental component of rational consistency, and thus is indespensible in any definition or discussion of objective reality. Human cognition; consciousness; conceptualization; awareness of Self is inexorably tied to the metaphysical axiom–the irreducible Truth from which ALL things spring.