To cater to the common good is to coax incompetence.
All posts by Argo
Why Existence MUST be Relative; the Existence of A is not Qua A, it is a Function of a Conceptual Comparison With B (and C, D, E, Etcetera)
Unless objects relatively exist with other objects, they cannot exist at all. Because non-relative objects cannot be compared. And objects which cannot be compared cannot be observed, and thus cannot be conceptualized, and thus cannot be defined. For the presence of the observer would necessitate a comparison, at the very least between the observer and the object observed…because two or more objects cannot coexist and yet be exclusive of comparison. It is a rational impossibility. And this is why existence must be relative. If existence is non-relative then the comparison is impossible. If A is A because A qua A– that is, because A is absolutely A…A, infinitely so–no comparison could ever reflect the truth of A:
First, because A, infinitely so, or infinite A, must exist in a vacuum of itself. For as soon as A is said to coexist with, say B, where B is, say, the observer, then A cannot be absolutely A. For A has an absolute limitation which is revealed by the presence of B.
And second, because A already has an ABSOLUTE definition: Itself (A). So any conceptualization (definition) of A beyond ITSELF (Absolute Self) is an absolute lie..an absolute falseness. And what is absolutely false cannot be manifest in reality as though it were true. For it is absolutely–that is infinitely–false. It is absolutely untrue; it is absolutely unreal; and therefore it absolutely cannot be.
Relative existence necessitates comparison which necessitates conceptualization. And since comparison/conceptualization is purely a function of relative existence, A qua A makes A absolute and therefore exclusive of observation and, by extension, comparison, which means it cannot be conceptualized, which means it cannot be defined. And that which cannot be defined cannot by definition be said to exist.
🍀
Not Primacy of Consciousness or Existence; the Primacy is of the Relativity/Conceptualization Corollary
The only difference between an infinite singularity and an infinite number of (necessarily relatively existing) parts is that the former precludes conceptualization while the latter demands it. This being the case, the proof that there is no infinite singularity but rather an infinity of parts insofar as the ontological reality of the universe is concerned is that man conceptualizes. And the proof of this is the fact that I have written this post, and that you have read it.
The fact that there is only a relatively existing infinity of parts and not an infinite singularity also serves to prove that conceptualization cannot be existentially/ontologically/metaphysically/physically divorced from reality. Relativity and conceptualization must be corollaries. In other words, man’s ability to declare what things are is fully integrated into the object reality of the universe. Without man’s naming of that which he says is, by his ability to conceptualize the relative interaction of the infinity of parts he observes, there can be nothing at all.
🍀
What Does it Mean to Violate Identity, Philosophically Speaking?
The violation of identity is the assertion that an object (a material concept, like “shoe”) or an idea (an abstract concept, like “left”) is or does two or more mutually exclusive things. Examples of this are:
“You cannot separate the individual from his community.”
An individual cannot also be the group. This assertion violates the identity of both the individual and the group, because it attempts to synthesize the antonym into each. Therefore, this assertion is entirely false.
“An effect is the direct function of the cause.”
This is interesting. It’s what I call a false corollary. It is an attempt to synthesize these two mutually exclusive abstractions into a singularity–“Cause and Effect”, which is then often asserted to be a natural governing force…or a physical “law”, as it were. What really happens by inseparably combining the one with the other is that both are nullified. So instead of summing to 1, as in, say, “Ability and Action”, which is a true corollary, the relationship sums to zero. So, the assertion that “Cause and Effect” is monolithic (summing to 1) is really nothing more than the violation of the identity of both abstract concepts. If “cause” equals “effect” then there is, in actuality, no such thing as either.
“Cause and Effect” then should always be rendered “Cause” and “Effect”. Because they are two completely distinct concepts; which, among others, man uses to describe a particular manifestation of the relative movement of objects he observes in his environment.
🍀
Why Choice is Preclude by the Forced Compliance to the Outcome of the Choice
If the consequence of losing the vote for those who prefer option B is the forced compliance to option A, then there is no option B, since B merely amounts to A, via force. Further, there is no actual option A, either, since compliance with A will be forced, which makes A non-optional.
Aphorism of the Day: BEING Me (or You), and Asserting the Practical Implication of This Truth–the Right to Pursue my own Will, is Not an IMPOSITION of my Will Upon Others
To say that my refusal to accept that it is moral to compel me against my will is somehow ITSELF an imposition of my will on others…is categorically irrational. It’s desperation in sophist guise. It is an admission of one’s utter rejection of reason, and an one’s arrant unwillingness to admit the Truth of the sanctity of the human being; the only rational moral and epistemological reference–the Self.
Aphorism of This Day: Some Brief Advice Regarding Users
There are people who feel that those who are non-threatening are weak, and that the point of weakness is to exploit it. Avoid them.
🍀
There is No Such Thing as Existential Plurality, There is Only Corollary: A Foundational Pillar of What I Call Objective Relativity
There is no such thing as plurality, only corollary.
This is a maxim which, though it may appear simple, if not somewhat abstruse, is predicated upon hours and hours of thought and discursive logic. I am arguing from several different angles here, all of them equally effective in proving the maxim, I think.
1.
The non-existence of space. That is, I reject the idea that a vacuum of things (the absence of that which IS) is a thing in and of itself. That which is the absence of all that exists cannot, by necessity AND by definition, itself exist. Of course, the idea of plurality of existence depends upon the notion that there is a physical separation of objects: that A is literally distinct from B, and this because of the actual presence of absence (contradiction alert) between them. This is an utterly irrational assertion and conclusion. If space is a thing, then what, for instance, is between space and objects A and B? Space, being itself an object, would need to be absolutely distinct from A and B, as A and B are absolutely distinct from each other. So now, instead of a plurality of existence between objects A and B, you have a plurality of existence betweem objects A and B and space–let’s call space, C. Which means that now you must insert object D, which is the space between A and C and, B and C. Which means that now you must introduce object E, which is the space between A and C and D; and B and C and D. And this goes on indefinitely. Once the distinction–the space–between A and B becomes itself its own existent object, you have created an infinite number of “spaces” between objects. Thus, to define plurality this way makes any existential relationship–any actual interaction between A and B–impossible…because they have become INFINITELY distinct. The fact that they exist infinitely distinct from one another means that their existence cannot accommodate or integrate the existence of any other object. They are completely defined by the infinity of their absolutely distinct existence. Thus, things become merely distinction itself. And distinction, as I’ve already explained, is not a thing itself, but the absence of things.
2.
A and B relate relatively to one another. At no point, except conceptually, does either object form the objective reference of the relationship. Depending upon the needs and frame of reference of the conceptualizing agent (the observer), either A is the reference OR B is the reference. In and of themselves, A and B are existentially and thus relationally absolutely identical. There is NO objective distinction, and thus no definition, possible unless the conceptualizing agent is there to provide the conceptual context whereby A or B can, at any given moment, become the reference for the relative relationship. What this means is that the idea of a literal distinction between objects A and B is impossible, because that kind of distinction, being wholly relative, is, in and of itself, impossible to define. Only the conceptualizing agent can provide the context whereby any relationship, and thus any true, relevant, and therefore actual distinction, is possible.
3.
Number two being the case, there can be no actual distinction absent the observation of the conceptualizing agent. Observation of a thing, however, in order to produce a concept (by which the observer is known to actually observe someTHING), requires a relative relationship between A and B. But a relative relationship requires relatively existing objects…and note the plural form of that word. Relativity between objects demands that there can be no SINGULAR object which exists in and of itself. For without a relative relationship, which requires two or more objects, no object can be defined; for EVERY object which is said to be this or that can only be defined according to how it RELATIVELY relates to another object (or other objects). This makes literal, physical plurality impossible. For it is not the DISTINCTION between A and B which ultimately creates their definitions, but the fact that they are existential COROLLARIES. That is, the existence of A inexorably demands the corollary existence of B. There is no A without its corollary B, and vice versa. I am not saying A is B, I am saying they are corollaries. I am saying that their distinction is one of utterly relative relationship, resulting in the concept, by the observer, which becomes A, and the concept which becomes B.
🍀
How the Observer Actually Relates to Truth: The Observer is NOT Ontologically Identical to what He Observes
The relationship between Self(Observer)/Perspective, and Truth/Reality is as follows:
Observer + Observed = Truth
NOT:
Observer = Observed = Truth
The former is a rationally consistent equation based upon a metaphysic which asserts Ability as the Primary, and is the result of years of philosophical study of and thinking upon rational absolutes. The latter is a rationally inconsistent equation–and the one most popularly assumed, at least in the West–and rooted in an irrational scientific and “objective” (or empirical) metaphysic which aasserts Determinism (often asserted as material “cause and effect”) as the Primary (though Objectivists will claim “existence” as the Primary, which functionally means the same thing), and is the result of years of popular abdication of discursive logic and the detrimental dismissal of REASON, as opposed to observation or the premise ITSELF, as that which must dictate intellectual conclusions, both practical and ideological.
🍀
Because of Man’s Moral and Intellectual Agency, Need and Want are Corollaries
It is impossible to separate need from desire. That is, it is impossible to separate one’s needs from one’s idea of how these needs can be most satisfyingly met for oneself. Thus, to strip a man of the freedom to act as he so desires in pursuit of his own needs (i.e. to live his life as he sees fit according to his own existential reference) is to in fact make it impossible for his needs to be met…because “he”, the individual, has been removed from the equation. If a man may not choose his food, his shelter, his clothing, then these things must become death to him. They are a mark of his oppression, not the givers of life or vitality; they are a festoon of the tyranny which murders him.
🍀
