All posts by Argo

Why Voting is Not in One’s Self Interest

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , , ,

[Updated version of “Why Voting Out of Self Interest is a Contradiction in Terms”; with many edits]

Staying with the theme of voting, and my devil’s advocate approach (again because I do not consider myself an anarchist), here is another article criticizing the efficacy and rationality of voting. In this article, I take a much more denunciatory approach, questioning not merely the relevancy of voting–specifically for public officials in a representative democracy–but the morality of it. I l attempt to effectively argue why voting is a fundamental denial of one’s own self, and a capitulation to rule that must inevitably lead to one’s own categorical destruction.

Perhaps this is hyperbole. Judge for yourself. And feel free to disagree and comment. I am very interested in your perspectives on this controversial topic.

1.

Voting, I submit, is a contradiction to self, and a rank opponent of self-interest, and therefore an opponent of self-existence. And this is because, I aver, voting always implies an authority/submission dynamic–henceforth referred to as a “politic”. That is, to vote for someone to occupy a specific office implies that that office is one in which appealing to authority–which means appealing to force–is the fundamental means of discharging the duties of that office. This in turn nullifies the nominal purpose of voting (the affirmation of the self via representation) and therefore demands that all representative democracies inevitably morph into tyrannies sooner or later. Usually sooner.

But before we can discuss the conclusion, naturally we must examine the rationale that I submit takes us there.

2.

When it comes to claims that voting is not in the self-interest of the voter, the most obvious and perhaps most stark evidentiary argument can be found with those who voted for the loser of an election: the minority vote.  Indeed, it seems almost a poor use of time explicating the reasons why voting is not in the interest of those voters on the losing side of the election. Nevertheless, the self-evidentiary nature of such reasons may not be so…well, self-evident, given the common assumptions with respect to the presumed benevolence of a representative democracy. So let’s go ahead and examine the reasons.

The assertion:

The voting process whereby the majority elects the one who will act (ostensibly) as a representative of the “people” means that the self-interest of the minority–those who did not cast votes for the representative elected–is not served by the vote. Keeping in mind that “self-interest” is defined by the individual, not the representative nor the collective which he or she  ostensibly serves. For only the individual has the absolute context of “self” whereby self can be sufficiently known in order to ultimately determine what it truly needs and desires.

By definition, then, and ironically, the representative, or official, who has been elected to represent the minority has neither been elected by them, nor can he or she represent them, since such an official, during his or her running for office, must have openly declared that what they support and affirm with respect to the purpose and plans of that office is contrary to what the minority voters desired. In which case the official must necessarily officiate his or her responsibilities in a manner contrary to the will of certain people–people who are nevertheless obligated to submit to the authority given to the official by other voters who are not their political allies, and who may even promote ideas which are diametrically opposite.

Now, one might be tempted to make the argument that, given certain constitutional dictates, or the freedom to move out of the given geopolitical area, the minority voter is not necessarily bound to an elected official’s authority. But I submit that this reveals a lack of true understanding of the root philosophical premises and implications which underwrite the idea of voting…premises and implications one necessarily  concedes by engaging in the voting process in the first place.. These premises (which we will discuss momentarily) and implications have consequences which must inevitably reach across all geopolitical boundaries and eventually affect the whole of humanity, and define its condition.

But at the very least, to argue that one who finds himself or herself under the authority of an official they did not consign to office is not necessarily obligated to submit to that official’s authority, is to render their vote, as well as the  voting process irrelevant entirely, thus supporting my case that voting cannot in fact serve their self-interest.

My point here is that there is no reason to vote for someone who shall have no power over the voter to affect outcomes; who shall possess no philosophical mandate to exert some manner of control–of force.  And even more concisely: to vote is to implicitly condone rank authority over one’s life via the power granted by the vote to he or she who has been elected–as a function of their office. Period. In other words, voting does not imply freedom from coercive force by authority, but affirms it. If authority is not granted by the vote, then I submit what one is doing is not voting, and that voting is moot.

But some may argue that voting is voluntary. Thus, voting is not a binding of oneself inexorably to authority, but rather an exercise of free will.

I would counter this claim by saying that authority and free will are mutually exclusive. That if we accept that the vote implies the authority of the elected official to act, then free will is non-applicable to the process. Indeed, this is almost my entire point of this article: that free will in the case of democratic voting is in fact an illusion. Perhaps a convincing illusion due to the deft nature of the sophist arguments in support of voting, but an illusion nonetheless.

In other words, I submit that it is a contradiction, and thus impossible, to bind oneself willingly to authority, since authority is the power to compel behavior by force (if there is no  implicit force there is no explicit authority). Once force…once threats of punishment or death enter the equation, free will is irrelevant.  For choosing to obey or to be shot/imprisoned  (or otherwise punished) is NOT a legitimate choice.

But to willingly and freely accept the requests of another in one’s own self-interest is to fundamentally grant allegiance first and foremost to one’s own self-interest. And one never to votes for one’s own interest. It is what one does by nature. Thus, such a relationship is not and cannot be dependent on a vote, but on volunteerism. And volunteerism is obviously not efficacious by authority, but by cooperation. That is, it is not a relationship based upon an authority/submission politic, but on the voluntary mutual exchange of value.

Where there is no authority there is no force. And where there is no force there is no sacrifice of ANY individuals. And where there is no sacrifice of any individuals (like the minority voter) there is no efficacy not purpose of voting. For if those elected to office NEVER have the power to compel behavior by force,  then it does not matter who is elected to office, or if anyone is. People are free to cooperate with those they like, and to eschew cooperation with those they do not. Since officials have no authority over any person, any person’s vote for them is irrelevant. Any person can choose to interact with them in whatever capacity they want, or not. And thus if voting doesn’t imply a right to rule–to compel–then what exactly is the point of voting?

Or said another way, of what use is voting for someone with whom you will only ever engage cooperatively–that is, of your own will and according to your own interest?

None at all.

Therefore I argue that when one votes he or she must implicitly accept the idea that submission to authority is the efficacious and rational means of effecting outcomes as a function of the relationship one has with his or her elected official. And this context, I submit, must inevitably expand to includes one’s very existence, in general. He or she who refuses to submit themselves, and their very will, to he or she who has been elected by the majority vote, acts hypocritically with respect to voting, thus nullifying the voting process altogether, and their own identity of SELF (more on this in a moment) because they have refused the necessary authority/submission politic which they must have implicitly conceded as the fundamental philosophical rationale for casting their vote in the first place; and this in order to not render the act of voting an act of hypocrisy.

One cannot have his or her cake and eat it too. If one affirms the efficacy and morality of voting, by voting, then one is ethically obligated to the outcome of that vote, whatever it is, whomever is elected. What one wants, or believes is the moral or rational means to organize society one’s own life, or whatever other issue with which they happen to concern themselves, besides the point. One alaways votes not for cooperation, but for rule. One votes for a politic which demands that cooperation is fundamentally irrelevant. To vote is to submit, and this by the very nature of voting. And this concession to one’s individual submission is the irony which makes voting moot.

One could also put it this way: If the vote necessarily nullifies the free will of the minority voters by subjecting them to the coercive power–the authority–of the official, then I submit that everyone’s free will is nullified. That is, even what those who voted for the official want is besides the point. It may appear to be cooperation at first glance, but if force can be used to compel the will of those who voted against the official, then we must assume that force is the operative means by which everyone is compelled.

If one agrees with the official, good for them, they are not ostensibly forced. But at any time should that person withdraw his or her support, he or she shall be forced to comply with the authority granted by the vote, just like any other minority voter who must endure the consequences of the vote. And this makes the person’s willful compliance irrelevant. The official doesn’t need their will. He or she doesn’t need their choice. And thus, he or she doesn’t actually need their vote. In which case, force, then, not cooperation, is the operative root behind the actions of the elected official. Which again demands that voting is not really relevant at all, but is actually a metaphysical declaration that at one’s root, will, and therefore consciousness itself, shall be rendered moot, and that one must be compelled by force alone to outcomes desired by the authority.

3.

If social outcomes–if the social organization of human reality is a matter of who may compel the behavior of others by force, and this the premise behind voting, then voting is irrelevant. Voting for someone is irrelevant. Who rules is irrelevant. Authority–not ideas, not people, not cooperation–is the method of organizing human existence, in which case authority is the foundation of reality. The context of the individual–of self-awareness, free will and choice–is an anathema to the authority/submission politic. The life of the individual ceases to be the context. The frame of reference of the individual is not the yardstick of morality, conceptual efficacy, and truth. Rather, death, the absence of such a context, the absence of such a frame of reference, the absence of self becomes the measurement by which a moral and true society–that is, reality–is gauged.  And yet it doesn’t take an Aristotle to spot the implicit contradiction and predict the inevitable disaster.

4.

And so, even though I began this article by using the minority vote as an example of how voting itself undermines and contradicts its own meaning, relevancy, and purpose, I think I have illustrated how, because of the authority/submission politic necessarily demanded by voting and the self-denial that authority must command to be consistent with its premises, no one actually gains by conceding and instituting the vote as the means of establishing social, political, and economic structure. Further, I think that I have established that no one is ever, nor can they be, actually represented by he or she who is voted into office, because what one thinks, from the frame of reference of oneself, which is their only frame of reference, is irrelevant. And that to vote, whatever the outcome, is to concede that one–the individual–does not actually possess the metaphysical ability–that is, that natural ability–to apprehend reality and existence enough cast a vote in the first place. For to vote for someone to represent you is to concede that someone else must, and is able, to be you, for you. In which case, of what relevancy are you?

None at all.

If you can somehow exist and shall exist and manifest your own life by proxy, then there is no relevant context for you qua you. Which makes you–the root “is” that is you–of zero value. You qua you are actually a stumbling block to reality, and a hole in your own existence.

5.

To vote is not to cooperate. Cooperation nullifies the relevancy of voting because cooperation affirms the infinite value of every individual, which then denies the authority/submission politic implicit to voting. There are no losers in cooperative exchange. There are no “minority” participants, no “lesser” contributors. No one is collectivized in this a way, or in any way.  There is no sacrifice of “minority” participants to authority by election, only everyone’s fundamental self-interest.

Further, cooperation implies the freedom of individuals to not cooperate, and freedom from punitive measures as a consequence of non-cooperation, because the innate metaphysical value of the individual, even absent his or her cooperation, is still affirmed and established as the moral and rational standard.

But there is no freedom to opt out of the outcomes of a vote once one has cast it. Because at the heart of voting is, again, the idea that an individual can be represented. And the idea of representation bespeaks of a metaphysical premise which says that the individual is somehow able to exist by proxy. And to deny the outcome of the vote, to not submit, is to deny the premise. And therefore to deny he or she who was elected to represent oneself is tantamount to self–denial. And those who deny self are walking contradictions, and can expect to have no say in anything at all because they have forsaken themselves, which is: the authority of the official in power because of the vote, which they have conceded and to which they have agreed to submit by casting a vote in the first place. Those people should expect nothing but to be considered and treated as as enemies of a society and reality founded upon the authority/submission politic via the vote.

6.

In conclusion, I submit that voting and cooperation are mutually exclusive because they imply utterly opposing metaphysical premises with respect to those individuals governed by the outcomes of elections. To vote is to assume that one may be represented by another who is absolutely outside oneself, which is an impossible contradiction. But there is no such representation in cooperation. To cooperate, everyone must represent themselves, and all of us must recognize the infinite worth of one other, as individuals.

But as always, judge for yourselves the veracity of my arguments. I am open to all ideas.

 

Why a Plurality of Existence is Impossible (updated version)

Metaphysics, , , ,

[Here is a reblog of my previous article, with significant additions and edits. ]

“Existence exists”, not distinct existences, so the metaphysical premise goes.

So, let’s be clear about what this means. It’s not the tree which is the metaphysical primary, okay, but the existence of the tree. And since existence is the primary, and all things “objectively” exist, existence becomes a de facto singularity, not a plurality, since there is and can be no relevant difference between the existence of objects. In other words, if all things exist, and existence is the metaphysical primary, then all things must exist equally. It cannot be said that on the primary metaphysical level one thing–one object–exists more or less than another. Meaning that when it comes to existence, there are no relevant distinctions between the existence of objects…between that which equally–in equal measure–applies to all objects, regardless of what the objects are; regardless of the nature of the objects. And an irrelevant distinction is in fact no distinction at all. For nature does not trump the metaphysical primary in terms of describing the absolute, infinite, unchanging essence of a thing. Nature thus becomes moot if in fact the metaphysical primary is one of absolute and infinite equality.

Additionally, it is not the nature of objects which drives the supreme relevancy of existence, as though it functions according to its own separate paradigm. For in that case the metaphysical primary would be absolutely bound to “nature”, making it a direct function of existence. But in that case, how can there be distinctions of nature? If nature is in essence the metaphysical primary, and thus must apply in full and equal measure–absolute and infinite–to all objects, then how can any relevant distinctions be defined by nature?

They cannot.

So then, for nature to apply as a means to provide relevant distinctions between objects it really cannot have anything directly to do with the metaphysical primary. It must apply particularly to specific objects, in varying degrees, and not equal amongst objects. But this becomes impossible and irrelevant to that which does apply absolutely equally to all objects–that is, the metaphysical primary, because that which IS all things, the primary, nullifies that which is in opposition to it–in this case, a “plurality of existence according to nature”–which attempts to subordinate existence, the metaphysical primary, to nature, in order to rationalize a plurality of existence. This is obviously contradictory, and thus illogical and impossible.

Nature, then, cannot be the one thing which all things equally share, but also by which objects can be defined distinctly, because this is a contradiction in terms. In short, nature cannot be rationally incorporated into the metaphysical primary of existence, which again must be singular, because it–that is nature–is considered a property unique and of various value or degree to objects. Since existence, the primary, must rationally apply to all objects equally, then by definition there can be no unique and ultimately distinctive properties amongst those objects.

In every case then, I submit, there can be no plurality of existence for the simple fact that there must be some singular and absolute commonality which binds all objects by forming the very essence from which they all are a direct function, and which resolves the existential mutual exclusivity of objects which are said to be “plurality” at the fundamental, primary metaphysical level really must mean mean is infinitely distinct…or infinite distinction. Which is of course impossible. For even what is “plural” in existence must have a common context whereby the plurality is not infinite distinction between objects–which again is really the metaphysic of the mutual exclusivity of objects–in order that actual efficacious interaction between and amongst objects can occur. And that context is the metaphysical primary. And it is not plural, but utterly and infinitely inclusive and singular.

Does Voting Matter?: An argument for non-participation

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , ,

In this article I will present to you an argument which questions the practical relevancy of voting. I consider this a “devil’s advocate” perspective, because I do NOT consider myself an anarchist…that is, one who denies any and all efficacy of government. And though it may seem that I have convinced myself one way or another on this, I assure you I have not. I have pondered the question of the true value and efficacy of government and have not been able to utterly conclude and convince myself that government cannot work. Indeed, I would submit that given the right context government can be exceedingly beneficial, and there are objective examples of this which can be cited. Many of my close friends are politically active and I by no means intend to disparage their interest or their opinions.

This article is one regarding, particularly, voting, not necessarily government qua government as we currently observe it. However, in order to address that topic I needed to examine what I believe can be argued is the fundamental premise which underwrites government currently (but not necessarily absolutely, and not necessarily initially or innately) and proceed to make my argument from there. So that’s what I did.

But I admit that my premise may be flawed, and though it may sound like it, I am by no means suggesting that voting is necessarily inherently useless or perpetuates a malevolent system or idea. This is only true if we accept the premise, which we may not. And if the premise is true. Which I concede it may not be.

*

“Does voting really matter?”

Wait. Before you answer, let me put it another way:

Does it really matter who gets elected? And don’t think transiently. Think ultimately. Think: does it matter, when the premise of government has realized its ultimate purpose and necessary conclusion, who holds office and who does not? For every premise must lead to a practical outcome, and this outome is inevitable if the premise is consistently underwriting and perpetuating the apparatus of that which is established upon it. Which of course it will be, for otherwise that which has been established upon the premise will deviate so far from the premise that it will no longer fit the definition or practical description of that which has been established. In other words, as long as government as we know it currently is defined as “government”, instead of something else, or “government”, but qualified by a definition which is markedly different from what is observed, then the premise will persist. Which means the conclusion must necessarily be realized.

I guess I should pause here and ask: what is the premise which underwrites government? Do you know? Have you given it much thought? If not, don’t worry. Most people haven’t. Oh, certainly people have ideas and opinions about what government should and shouldn’t do for and to people, how big or small it should be, and what kind of power it should possess for the purposes of structuring people’s lives, and what kinds of institutions it should be able to legally establish on behalf of certain constituents, or itself, or what offices should exist and for how long the terms of these offices should be. In other words, many people have ideas and opinions with respect to government after the premise.  But this isn’t the real issue…meaning it isn’t the root issue, or even, really, and ultimately, the operative issue.  And further, government isn’t really rooted in the nature of itself, but…

The real issue is the nature of man. Of you and I. Of the individual over which the government will rule, or for which the government will act on his or her behalf.

So I ask again: what is the premise behind government?

Think about it.

…

…

Okay, that’s enough time. Do you have it? No? That’s okay, I will tell you what the premise is.

The premise is that man, according to his nature, must be governed. That at best, man free from the compelling force of a central authority will necessarily, again by nature, organize an existence inferior to that established through government. And it will be so inferior that it must fail eventually, because the nature of man is to consider himself an individual first, entitled to the full sum and substance of what is procured and expressed by that existence, which thus must lead to the individual subjective cognitive definition of existence which in turn must lead to chaos, and the wild and unfettered exploitation and destruction of humanity at the hands of itself.

And because of this premise regarding man’s nature, governments are established (by men, a contradiction never really addressed) to create an “objective” and “organized” society so that man will not dissolve into a sea of anarchy and an orgy of sin, but will flourish and prosper in peace and plenty, and will survive to pass on this objective and benevolent existence to his children, who will, under the authority (to compel by force) of government, also experience such prosperity.

In other words, and to put it more precisely. Man needs governing because he will literally destroy himself without it. Man thus needs government to create an organized reality for him, to ensure his survival and to promote his well being.  And what this really means is that man, himself, individually, is fundamentally insufficient to his own existence. He possesses neither the innate epistemological adequacy or the metaphysical singularity–the fundamental Ability–which can amount to anything efficacious, relevant, or moral at all. Therefore:

Man qua man = the death of man

Which means that man qua man = the absence, or the the NOT, of man, meaning that to exist as man is to, in fact, contradict man.

And therefore, according to the premise of government then…

Government = the life of man; which means the TRUTH of man

And therefore…

Governement = the true and actual existence of man, and thus the efficacy and relevancy of man

Which means…

Government = man; or Government IS man, FOR man.

And because this is the foundational premise of government, the reality is–and this will scandalize–that in the matter of the democratic voting by the people for their public representatives it simply, ultimately, does not matter WHO gets elected.  For he or she who represents the people–the collective–cannot by definition represent the individual.  Indeed, the very title “public representative” or “public servant” reveals the inherent contradiction. There is no “people”, no “public”–it’s an abstraction that has been infused by false metaphysics with some kind practical efficacy. But this efficacy is also false, for what is wholly abstract cannot have any benevolent or rational effect upon man’s non-abstract experience. The “public” is an ideal. The individual is what’s real. Thus, a public servant cannot by definition serve individuals. A public servant serves the ideal. He or she serves the abstraction of “public”.

And what is the purpose of an abstraction? The purpose of an abstract concept is to affirm and promote that (he or she or they) which utilizes it in service to their practical organization of the environment in order to realize a desired outcome. We use abstractions like “left” and “right” and “over” and “beyond” and “miles” to get where we want to go. SImilarly, the government uses the abstraction of “public good” to go where it desires to go. And it desires to go, always and ever, back to where it started: the premise. Man needs governing. Man can only really efficaciously and truly exist through government. Government’s existence IS man’s existence. (And isn’t this the notion we all seem to concede at some level and to some degree–that humanity perishes without government?) Thus, man must be compelled to the affirmation of that which is his only true self: the government.

To be a public servant then is not to serve the individual, but to serve the government, which is the material establishment of the abstraction of “public”. Individual existence, according to the premise, must be subordinated to the governing representative in order that true existence–public, collective existence, determined and defined according to the dictates of governing authority which wields self-legalized force as the ultimate means of compelling individual submission and represents the abstract (“transcendent” is actually how it is described) ideal of “public”–can be realized. Once this objective is finally fully realized, we are assured that paradise will be manifest.

*

Now, it is no surprise that the philosophical–especially metaphysical–premise which affirms government could very well mean that the worst kinds of people will seek positions in it. And because the inherent authoritarianism of government can be said to cater to those with proclivities towards authoritarianism–because they are the ones who naturally thrive in such an environment–it is to be expected that most people in positions of public power might likely trend, personality-wise, to the antisocial side of the psychological spectrum. Thus, to be suspicious of politicians and political candidates is both a natural and rational mindset for people.

However, it would be a bit shortsighted to turn this natural and perfectly understandable suspicion into a cause by which we might engage in entertaining the notion that it actually makes a difference who we vote for and who we don’t; who is elected and who isn’t.

It doesn’t.

Because when it comes right down to the root of things, it is NOT the nature of people that is the problem. It is the nature of government–or rather the philosophy from which government springs. It doesn’t matter WHO is governing, because the outcomes are predicated ultimately not on what these individuals do or don’t do, or what their personality is or isn’t, but on the metaphysical premises which necessitate government in the first place. You see, government is not erected upon itself–it doesn’t spring from its own vacuum. It is merely a logical extesion of the aforementioned premise. Because man needs governing, there will be government, and it will fundamentally look a certain way, and it will fundamentally act a certain way. It will root all of what it practically accomplishes upon the necessary right it assumes to compel individual behavior by force, because this is what is demanded by the premise.

To put it another way, the problem isn’t the hypothetical malevolent or psychologically immoral government official–indeed, we just as well might assume that all officials are in fact benevolent and well-intentioned. But the be the benevolent official cannot redefine the premise (or can he or she? You decide.). Government renders such benevolence moot according to its nature. No matter how well-intentioned a government official is, his or her actions will be given categorical moral and practical value by the absolute philosophical context of government.  There is no such thing as “good” individuals in government. Because government has nothing to do with individuals.

Now, occasionally government will act in spite of the root premise, and individuals will benefit from the altruism. When the rights of personal property are upheld; when dangerous criminals are removed from society and neutralized; when peace is brokered between nations and war averted. These are good things, and government is rightly lauded for them. But eventually the government working from the premise will create so many opportunities for it to act in spite of itself that these altruistic acts must inevitably decline, and then finally be eschewed altogether. For government cannot act in the interest of its own demise…by definition it cannot act out of the assumption that it has no right to act. And since act it must, to its own end, according to the premise which validates its very existence, act it will. In other words, these acts of altruism will eventually be seen, when enough opportunities for them arise, as either existential threats to government, or a means by which its mandate to rule can be further realized through manipulating them. And at this point, functionally, they no longer occur at all.

So…why vote then?

To limit government?

No. To say the government is too powerful and that we need to elect person x, y, or z to curtail it is a contradiction, because what we are really saying is that the government needs to limit its power BY its power. That is, we accept the contradiction that government can restrict government.  If the government uses its power to limit itself then its “limitation” is really an extension of its power.

The argument can be convincingly made that if one was really free then it wouldn’t matter who they vote for because no one would have the power to compel their behavior by force. And the corollary to this then is that if they are not really free and the government can compel their behavior by force then it likewise doesn’t matter who they vote for. Either way their life is fundamentally a product of what the government says they can and cannot do.

Further, since we have no frame of reference for freedom in the truest sense (freedom from compelling force), I submit we can never actually vote on “issues” related to the people, which must and can only find practical relevancy at the individual level.  For these things only rationally exist in a context of freedom from force, and government by nature is the antipode of this. Thus, we can never vote for what we think would be in our best interest, because ultimately our interests are besides the point.

When all is said and done, and regardless of whatever reasons we may conjure up for ourselves, and even if we truly believe those ideas, we all pay our taxes and obey other laws because if we don’t we will find ourselves in prison.  And since this fact is constant and unchanging across elections, again I ask: does voting  matter?

It’s a good question.

You decide.

Why a Plurality of Existence is Impossible

General Philosophy, Physics and Metaphysics, , ,

“Existence exists”, not distinct existences, so the metaphysical premise goes.

So, let’s be clear about what this means. It’s not the tree which is the metaphysical primary, okay, but the existence of the tree. And since existence is the primary, and all things “objectively” exist, existence becomes a de facto singularity, not a plurality, since there is and can be no relevant difference between the existence of objects. In other words, if all things exist, and existence is the metaphysical  primary, then all things must exist equally. It cannot be said that on the primary metaphysical level one thing–one object–exists more or less than another.  Meaning that when it comes to existence, there are no relevant distinctions between the existence of objects…between that which equally–in equal measure–applies to all objects, regardless of what the objects are; regardless of the nature of the objects. And an irrelevant distinction is in fact no distinction at all. For nature does not trump the metaphysical primary in terms of describing the absolute, infinite, unchanging essence of a thing. Nature thus becomes moot if in fact the metaphysical primary is one of absolute and infinite equality.

Additionally, it is not the nature of objects which drives the supreme relevancy of existence, as though it functions according to its own separate paradigm. For in that case the metaphysical primary would be absolutely bound to “nature”, making it a direct function of existence. But in that case, how can there be distinctions of nature? If nature is in essence the metaphysical primary, and thus must apply in full and equal measure–absolute and infinite–to all objects, then how can any relevant distinctions be defined by nature?

They cannot.

So then, for nature to apply as a means to provide relevant distinctions between objects it really cannot have anything directly to do with the metaphysical primary.  It must apply particularly to specific objects, in varying degrees, and not equal amongst objects. But this becomes impossible and irrelevant to that which does apply absolutely equally to all objects–that is, the metaphysical primary, because that which IS all things, the primary, nullifies that which is in opposition to it–in this case, a “plurality of existence according to nature”–which attempts to subordinate existence, the metaphysical primary, to nature, in order to rationalize a plurality of existence. This is obviously contradictory, and thus illogical and impossible.

Nature, then, cannot be the one thing which all things equally share, but also by which objects can be defined distinctly, because this is a contradiction in terms. In short, nature cannot be rationally incorporated into the metaphysical primary of existence, which again must be singular, because it–that is nature–is considered a property unique and of various value or degree to objects. Since existence, the primary, must rationally apply to all objects equally, then by definition there can be no unique and ultimately distinctive properties amongst those objects.

In every case then, I submit, there can be no plurality of existence for the simple fact that there must be some singular and absolute commonality which binds all objects by forming the very essence from which they all are a direct function, and which resolves the existential mutual exclusivity of objects which are said to be “plurality” at the fundamental, primary metaphysical level really must mean mean is infinitely distinct…or infinite distinction. Which is of course impossible. For even what is “plural” in existence must have a common context whereby the plurality is not infinite distinction between objects–which again is really the metaphysic of the mutual exclusivity of objects–in order that actual efficacious interaction between and amongst objects can occur. And that context is the metaphysical primary. And it is not plural, but utterly and infinitely inclusive and singular.

Why is Causality (Cause and Effect) Not Determinative? Because It’s Not Real: The purely conceptual nature of “cause and effect”

General Philosophy, , , , ,

With respect to the determinative power of causality, I submit that there is none.  In support of this assertion I have developed the following explication, which reveals the nullifying contradiction of “cause and effect” when it is extracted from its purely conceptual  context:

There can be no cause qua cause until after  the effect is manifest. For what is a cause without an effect? It is certainly not a cause. For if a cause has not actually caused anything, then it is not a cause by definition.  In this way, then, anything which we would qualify as cause is categorically dependent for its rational and efficacious definition as a “cause” upon the effect.

Furthermore, we must also assert that there is no effect then which can exist except utterly independent of the cause. For unless the effect exists independently of the cause, it must be considered a direct and absolute function of the cause.  But if it is a direct and absolute function of the cause, then the distinction is eliminated, which then obliterates the very root essence of “cause and effect” in the first place, relegating it to irrelevance, and thus nonexistence…for that which is existentially irrelevant contradicts itself right out of existence.

Speaking of contradiction, note the following:

By the previous logic, cause and effect, being entirely distinct from one another, must therefore have entirely autonomous, separate existence already, prior to the confluence which is defined as “cause and effect” qua “cause and effect”.  In other words, there can be no effect unless the effect is an effect alone, absent any cause, before any cause manifests itself as a cause. Which then makes, by logical extension, the cause only a cause if it itself exists as such autonomously, absent the effect, before any effect manifests itself as an effect. In other words, each one must exist already as a prerequisite for “cause and effect” to  meet any sort of rationally consistent criteria in order to be defined as such: the effect is an effect prior to the cause causing it; and the cause is a cause prior to it actually having caused anything.

The cause needs the effect to be defined as the cause; and the effect needs the cause to be defined as an effect. But the effect cannot be a direct function of the cause without eliminating the distinction; and the cause cannot be given its absolute meaning and relevancy by the effect without likewise eliminating the distinction. But if the effect exists as the effect utterly independent of the cause, and the cause exists as the cause utterly independent of the effect, then what we assert is that an effect doesn’t actually require a cause to be an effect, and a cause doesn’t actually require an effect to be a cause.  Which…destroys the definitions of both, nullifying their “autonomous”, “independent” existence.

The point is that no matter from which angle approach it, you inevitably run into an impenetrable wall of contradiction.

And so it goes when we attempt to incorporate mutually exclusive conceptual abstractions into the non-abstract material universe of actual objects by assuming and imagining that they are likewise, themselves, in possession of a material, actual essence.

The solution to reconciling the contradictions now becomes apparent. We must not consider cause and effect an actual, catalyzing causal force…like we spuriously do with the laws of physics when we describe them as “governing”.  We must recognize cause and effect for what it really is: a concept human beings use to describe the relative movement of objects in the environment, objects which are fundamentally neither caused nor effected but are rooted in the infinity of their own absolute and infinitely singular material essence, in whatever form it happens to be observed, and as a function of whatever relative context in which it happens to be observed.

Indeed–and in conclusion–the presence of relativity in object interactions precludes any actual  (materially “existent”, for lack of a better term) cause and effect; yet it necessitates a conceptual cause and effect that the self-aware agent engages as a means to define and identify both what an object is, and how it is observed (i.e. its position relative to the observer at any given moment).

You Cannot Claim BY Your Existence That You Do Not Exist: The false ideological paradox of human free will and choice, and the implicit determinism of physical or natural law

General Philosophy, , , ,

1.

[Please note that in this essay I will use the phrases “laws of physics”, “physical law”, and “natural law” interchangeably.]

“Since there is no distinction between man and the laws of physics, it is impossible that man should know and assert that he is determined by them, these laws.”

-Me

This is an axiom I have made countless times before, and yet it doesn’t seem to get much traction. Perhaps it’s difficult to wrap one’s head around the claim without a substantial amount of rumination, and experience with the underlying arguments. This is understandable, since the assertion runs ostensibly paradoxical to an ontology and frankly dubious scientific philosophies that are taken by the vast majority of people as given. But what is also difficult, and more like impossible, is its refutation. And this makes sense, of course, for you cannot refute–at least objectively (which is to say reasonably)–an axiomatic truth. A truth perfect in its rational consistency, and irreducible in its conclusions, which have been derived from a comprehensive and carefully reasoned examination of the premises it answers.

I do understand that the axiom I aver is not necessarily intuitive given the heavy influence of Platonist thinking in western culture, but nevertheless it is perfectly consistent to state the following:

If a man is absolutely determined to think what he thinks and believe what he believes and say what he says, then it must be because he is absolutely determined to BE what he is.

And if man is absolutely determined to be what he is, then there really isn’t any distinction between man’s Self and the determining force, ITSELF. For that which is absolutely determined must be an absolute function of that which determines it. In which case, there is no real or relevant distinction between the two. If man is absolutely determined by the laws of physics then man cannot know he is absolutely determined because there is no man which independently exists in the first place. There is no one to KNOW anything.

Nevertheless, it is often asserted and assumed that the laws of physics are not actually abstract, but are real, actual, and causal, and possess a power to govern and mathematically order all things (which makes math also non-abstract, being the “code” or “language” through which the determined order is set). And it is by this rationale that it is asserted, without as much as a blush toward the irony and contradiction, that human beings, their choices, and actions, and thoughts are determined by these physical laws. Or stated another way, there are many (if not most) people who claim that they and everyone else have no actual “free will” from the place of consciously autonomous, moral, volitional and self-aware agency; that bodies and brains are fully determined by natural law–by the mathematical constructs which dictate all processes; and therefore no one actually chooses or thinks or acts for themselves. Conscious existence is an illusion (an illusion of what, exactly, cannot be answered). There is no will. There is no choice. There is no doing. There is only the all-compelling force of physics.

And yet, somehow, without will or choice or volitional action, or self-existence, there IS knowledge. We are told that though man cannot actually think, he can know, and can possess understanding with respect to his categorical determinism. He is not existentially sufficient to individual action, nor does he possess an individual, independent capacity for learning. And yet he can know . He can know and assert with un-ironic certainty that he is absolutely determined by physical law.

People convinced of their own natural determinism declare with unequivocal surety a thing which their own logic and their own admission cannot possibly be true. To say that you can know that you cannot choose what you do and cannot choose what you think and cannot choose what you feel because what you ARE is an absolute function of determinative natural laws OUTSIDE of you is a contradiction so obvious that one must assume that the only reason it is not immediately recognized as self-negating is that it is completely obscured by the smoke of two thousand years of gnostic, Platonist philosophical convention which demands the “enlightened” determinist position. This and the evolution of the specious presumption that the scientist–many or most of whom conflate and infuse their false determinative philosophy with and into what is considered the empirical essence of the natural universe–is the final arbiter of Truth.

2.

To put the assertion more concisely: man knows that he is determined by the laws of physics because he is determined by the laws of physics to know.

How is it that one knows?

Because he is determined.

And how is it that he is determined?

Because he knows.

This is an outrageous and shocking bit of purely circular “reasoning”. And it is shocking because it is so quickly asserted and accepted by people who are otherwise to be considered to possess above-average intelligence.

(Short side note: If the above assertion is true then there can be no consciousness. Man can have no frame of reference for “he”, because “he” or “self” is a concept, and concepts are cognitive, and cognition is determined. And certainly if his thoughts are determined then his brain, which is part of his body is equally determined. In which case ALL of man is subsumed under absolute determinism. There is no individual consciousness because there is no individual body because all bodies are direct products of the all determining laws of physics. More explication of this below.)

Here is the real maliciousness and mendacity of the circular logic:

One knows that he is determined to know; and the knowing is the very, and ONLY, proof possible that he is determined to know. In this case, ultimately, it must be the root EXISTENCE of man which is the very PROOF that everything about him is determined, because what man knows is a direct and absolute function of his existence. Again, this makes man’s knowing of his determinism a function of his utterly determined existence by physical law. And of course it isn’t just knowing, or knowledge, but ALL that man does and whatever capabilities and capacities he possesses is a function of his root, irreducible existence. Therefore, determinism as a function of physical law is unfalsifiable because no matter what man does, or thinks, or asserts, it is proof of the veracity and efficacy of determinism. And this is why this circular reasoning (and circular reasoning in general) is so vile. It co-opts the entire argument by rendering ideas, and thus the argument itself, meaningless. It consigns ideas and all discussion and reason and cooperation into oblivion by making every counter point ipso facto agreement with the premise because it is only possible because of the POWER of the premise to effect it. Man exists–man IS–because he is determined to be. And therefore he knows whatever he knows because he is determined to know. And since ALL assertions, beliefs, ideas, presumptions, assumptions, opinions, hypotheses, theories, confessions of faith, affections, passions, sympathies, inclinations, inferences, and even queries etc. are a function of what man thinks and this a product of his full sum of knowledge and man’s knowledge is determined by the laws of physics, then ALL contrary arguments to determinism become affirmation and proof of it by fiat.

People, this is artifice.

Man’s knowledge is determined because man’s Self is determined. And is absolutely determined by that which is absolutely NOT man. Which…cannot be true. That which absolutely determined man IS absolutely man. Thus, there is no man. THAT’S the only way he is determined. In which case, what is man?

Man is nothing. So man cannot say that he knows. For “he” has been summarily removed from the existential equation.

3.

Man is absolutely determined by the laws of physics, so he knows. Because he knows, he is absolutely determined by the laws of physics. His conscious knowledge of his own absolute determinism by the determinative force–in this case, the laws of physics–is itself likewise by definition an absolute product of the determinative force. Man knows, somehow, that both he and what he knows are a direct and absolute function/product/derivative of natural law which must by its very definition and very purpose render any distinction between itself and man impossible. The tautology thus renders to us this equation:

Man’s knowledge via man, himself = the laws of physics.

Proceeding from this equation is what I call the Law of Absolute Context:

Because of this axiom rooted in the logic of determinative natural law, man does not and cannot possess a frame of reference–which could only be an independent, distinct, autonomous Self–by which to observe and thus define the ABSENCE of determinism as a function the laws of physics. Without being able to define a distinction between what is determined by the laws of physics from what is not determined by the laws of physics, and without being able to claim an individual identity or agency of Self because any such agency must be a direct function of the determinative laws of physics, he cannot possibly know that he is determined by the laws of physics. It’s the same false logic utilized by those who insist that the universe must have been consciously created by God due to the ostensibly non-chaotic, mathematically ordered nature of it. But one only has to point out that without the frame of reference of a DISORDERED universe, which is not possible because of the ABSOLUTE and ipso facto nature of the ORDERED universe, it cannot be claimed that the universe is necessarily ordered and thus must have been consciously created by God. A disordered universe is merely a theoretical abstraction, predicated upon the constant of the material, ordered universe, and a direct function of it. In which case, there is no actual, empirical distinction at all by which to make the comparison that would lead to the conclusion.

It is for this reason I submit that if the laws of physics determine man, man cannot possibly know he is determined, and thus he cannot claim it. The tautology makes it impossible. Man is determined by the laws of physics and therefore, by logical extension, his consciousness is determined, and from that determined consciousness he knows and claims that he is determined by the laws of physics. This necessitates the following corollary: man is determined by the laws of physics to claim what he knows, as a function of his consciousness which is a function of his being which is a function of the determinism of the laws of physics. Man’s Self and therefore ALL of his Self-expression IS nothing more than the EXACT natural law which determines him. By definition then, man is impossible. There is no distinct agency or identity to him. He has no Self and therefore no Self consciousness, no Self-awareness, no Self-knowledge, and no Self-expression–no ideas, no beliefs, no opinions, no assertions. This is why we must vigilantly resist taking seriously anyone who claims our free will is an illusion and our independent, conscious choice impossible because of the determinative power and nature of the laws of physics. Because if man has been entirely subordinated and subsumed by natural law, then he doesn’t actually exist and therefore he cannot know and thus claim that he does not exist.

The context is absolute determinism, you see. There is no context of non-determinism, or conscious agency free from the determinative power of the laws of physics which then creates the comparison that can lead to the conclusion that an independently conscious, moral agent is determined by the laws of physics.

And thus, again, the irreducible axiom must remain, and remain in perpetuity:

“Since there is no distinction between man and the laws of physics, it is impossible that man should know and assert that he is determined by them, these laws.”

God’s Categorical Knowledge is Both Irrelevant and Impossible for Humanity to Know and Claim

Epistemology, Metaphysics, , , , , , , , ,

God knows everything because He is God.

This translates logically to: God = the knowledge of everything.

Said another way: He is God because He knows everything. Only one agent can know everything, and it is by virtue of BEING that agent that all is known. God’s knowledge is not acquired…it is a function of his nature. Omniscience cannot be separated from the very essence of God…His God-ness. Therefore it follows, again, that not only does He know everything because He is God, He is God, because He knows everything. This is a fundamental truth–an axiomatic statement regarding the very foundational natural essence of God–held by all of Christian orthodoxy, and even most non-orthodox factions.

Conversely, man does not know everything. And why does he not know everything? Because he hasn’t yet acquired all knowledge? No. It is proclaimed by orthodoxy that, just as omniscience is a function of God’s nature–that is, a function of being what He is–ABSOLUTE INCOMPLETE knowledge is a function of being man. What man knows will always be incomplete no matter how much he learns because his incomplete knowledge is a function not of what he knows or doesn’t know by virtue of what he has sought to learn or information to which he has been exposed, but of what he IS.  Man does not and cannot know everything because he is man. Thus, we have the following maxim:

Man = the incomplete knowledge of everything.

Man does not know everything because he is man. One agent (or one collection of agents of the same nature–humanity) does not know everything. That agent is man. So, in the same way we declare that man does not know everything because he is Man, we can also declare that He is man because he does not know everything.

*

God = absolute knowledge. Or, God = the possession of absolute knowledge.

Now, ostensibly that sounds pretty reasonable. No red flags are necessarily immediately raised. But look at what happens when we state the logical existential/epistemological corollary of this maxim:

Man = incompleteness of knowledge.  Or, Man = the possession of absolute incomplete knowledge.

See the contradiction? You cannot possess an absolute amount of what is absolutely not absolute. Or said another way, you cannot completely possess that which is incomplete. Or even more concisely, there is no such thing as a complete incomplete.

And yet this is the very pointed logical error the vast majority of Christians and other religious people commit constantly. It is a false assertion that is not supported by the Bible, nor reason. And even worse, it leads to the perpetual undervaluing of human beings which in turn has led, and will surely continue to lead, to the to manipulation and abuse, even outright slavery and murder, of millions, even billions, of innocent people.

Since man is the possessor of absolute incomplete knowledge (which makes his knowledge fundamentally “insufficient” when we apply this epistemology to morality and ethics), it is impossible for him to claim that God knows everything. But here is where it gets even more interesting. In the same way, it is impossible for God to claim that man does NOT know everything. This is because the metaphysical/epistemological frames of reference of God and man are mutually exclusive. Absolute complete knowledge is utterly and infinitely exclusive of absolutely incomplete knowledge, and vice versa. God wouldn’t and couldn’t know–by definition–what a state of incomplete knowledge looks like in order to claim that it exists and is true.  And man wouldn’t and couldn’t know–by definition–what a state of complete knowledge looks like in order to claim it exists and is true. The reason for both of these axioms is that according to the presumptions undergirding the concept of omniscience, knowledge is not a function of learning–it is not a function of possessing an ABILITY to know–but a function of BEING; the static axiom of the root existence of the agent IS the full sum and substance of the KNOWLEDGE of that agent. You see, the folly is in the fusion of metaphysics and epistemology…what man is BECOMES what man knows, and the same is true for God. Knowledge is inexorably fused to that which does the knowing. This is a shocking bastardization of philosophy; not to mention a strangling of reason.

What it does, ultimately, is eradicat the relevancy of knowledge by destroying the agent which does the knowing. By fusing metaphysics with epistemology both are eliminated. Knowledge has no meaning nor purpose–it is ossified in pointlessness–because what man and God are as agents who are ABLE to know but in essence fully distinct from that knowledge, is erased.

In other words, the moral and volitional agent–God, man–is removed, and thus we make the concept of “knowing” irrelevant, since there can thus be no agent to know anything.

One final nail in the coffin of the perfectly absurd notion of divine omniscience:

If we claim that God knows everything, then this must of course include the fact that man does not know everything. Or rather, God knows the incomplete knowledge of man.

Hmm…that doesn’t sound quite right, does it?

What man knows becomes by definition a part of the “everything” that God knows. So then man’s categorical incomplete knowledge–his absolute LACK of knowledge–becomes a part of God’s complete knowledge.

Ummmm…no. This has ceased to make any sense whatsoever. It’s not even ostensibly rational. We aren’t within a hundred miles of even convincing  sophism at this point.

If we say that God has an absolutely complete knowledge which includes the knowledge of man’s absolutely incomplete knowledge (his “completely incomplete” knowledge), we have attempted to integrate an absolute negative–NOT knowing–with an absolute positive–knowing. Which is a contradiction.

But wait. It gets even better. And by “better”, I mean “more egregious”.

If God’s absolutely complete knowledge is a part of the absolutely incomplete knowledge of man, to the point where man can say with confidence that “God knows everything”, then God’s absolutely complete knowledge becomes part of man’s absolutely incomplete knowledge.  We have attempted to integrate an absolute positive–knowing–with an absolute negative–NOT knowing. So we’ve committed the same logical blunder, only this time with a level arrogance that only the rationally challenged, “humble”, orthodoxy-devoted, “doctrinally sound” followers of God, seem to possess. The idea that a lowly, totally depraved, wholly unrighteousness and violence-worshipping human worm can make some sort of claim as to what GOD knows is the very hypocrisy, presumption, and rebellion of which these people regularly accuse everyone else.

It is a staggeringly offensive doctrine, is my point.

At any rate, the entire idea of omniscience is stillborn. It cannot survive its birth because its mother is contradiction.

The conclusion then of the claim of divine omniscience is clear:  it is a rational failure.  It cannot be true.  There is no way that man can know that God knows everything and thus claim that God knows everything. I hope that I have sufficiently explained why doing this is a lie.

 

The Christian Does Not Die, He Becomes Death: Spiritual Marxism masquerading as the Christian orthodox ideal, Part 17

Calvinism/Philosophy, Metaphysics, , , , ,

Discussion Questions:

1.  Have you ever felt like you had insight and clarity into someone else’s poor decision?  Did you say anything?  How did it turn out?

(Community:  Your pathway to progress, pp. 35. North Point Ministries, 2008)

Let’s examine the profound and irrational assumptions/presumptions which form the philosophical roots of this “discussion” question (one of three we will examine), according to the spurious standard of today’s “doctrinally sound” Christian church.  Remember that in this series of articles on spiritual Marxism, using North Point Ministries’ small group booklet as my reference, we have been examining the doctrinal premises–and their ideological spawn–of today’s neo-Calvinist, neo-Reformed church movement, which is quickly becoming, or has become, the Christian movement of the 21st century in America, in general.

What is presented in this essay is based upon the philosophical ideals underwriting Christianity today, some of which we have  discussed in the Spiritual Marxism series already.  However, I believe that it is possible to read this essay without having read the previous ones and not be too terribly confused.  As usual, my penchant for verbosity tends to fill in most of the informational gaps which might otherwise be present in the essay of a more concise writer.

*

Here again is the discussion question:

Have you ever felt like you had insight and clarity into someone else’s poor decision? Did you say anything?  How did it turn out?

What we must understand with respect to the collectivism implicit in Christianity today, particularly of the neo-Reformed/neo-Calvinist type, is that, for these spiritual Marxists, the Group understands the existential context of the individual better than he or she does, at any given moment, and with respect to any issue, and any situation.  This is because “Group”, as I’ve explained before, is the primary metaphysic.  The irreducible ontological state of existence for any human being is not the Self, but the Collective. The individual is a direct function of the group with which he or she affiliates, not the other way around.  The key to existence then is finding the “right”, or the “True” group, and affiliating yourself with it, after which, through the epistemological enlightenment of the group (understanding how you know what you can know), you come to realize that YOU never actually had anything to do with joining, or finding, the group after all.  You became affiliated with the group, not by choice, but because you were determined into it…for determinism is, in fact, the only possible causal source of everything within a universe where Group, or Collective, is the sum and substance of all there is.

In Christianity today, the “Church” is the only ACTUAL, legitimate thing. It is All in All.  And “God” is its essence…which is merely the same thing as saying God IS the Group, the Group is God.  There is no relevant difference.  And what this means–and is the whole point of fabricating a Collectivist metaphysic in the first place–is that those who claim the divine mandate to rule the group, which is correlated to their special revelation/enlightenment, means that they, and no one else, (because God works through them, alone) possess an infinite Authority over everyone else.  This literally enslaves ALL of mankind to the subjective whims of a single person or small group of people, forever and absolutely.  And that, like I said, is precisely what all of the heady-sounding doctrine is all about.

So…back to the determinism which drove you into the “loving” arms of your Collective–the One, True Collective which governs and controls all things via its oneness to the Primary Consciousness.  Or, in this case “God” (and I use “God” in quotes, incidentally, because by no means should we think that these despots in any way have any actual affiliation with the real God…for He forbids such a thing I am convinced, and has nothing, I submit, to do with them in ANY measure according to their doctrine, which denies His truth as thoroughly as it denies yours and mine):

The “Group” as represented by that transcendent and infinite and immaterial Consciousness realized its Will upon your life, and you, helpless to resist because you have no actual will of your own, complied. Therefore, the answer to the question now begged–“What is the TRUE group, as opposed to one of the panoply of impostors?”–is simple:  The Group to which you were determined MUST be the True Group, otherwise you could not be counted among it.  See, since only the True Group has the True Consciousness which can determine all things, you could only ever have chosen to join to the Group to which you now belong.  There was no choice, you might say.  Otherwise, you would not have chosen it.

It is a tautology, you see.  The proof that you were determined to the group is that you chose it.  You chose because you were determined, and you were determined because you chose.  “A is A” is not a law of identity in this instance, it is a tautology, and this is a great example.  Whatever you chose to do you did because you were determined to choose it.  Choice and determinism are equivalent.  Another way of putting it is that choice is A and determinism is A.  A is A.  The Law of Identity is satisfied. Which is, incidentally, why so many smart people fall for this kind of thinking.  (Incidentally, the ease with which Aristotle’s Law of Identity can be conformed to the collectivist metaphysic by applying it to abstract concepts (actions) which are necessarily a function of material objects (concrete existence) is startling.  It is a strong argument for doubting the rationality and veracity of that Law.)

I understand the massive cognitive dissonance that is endemic to this ideology, and the need to suspend disbelief in order to make the rational leap from the discussion question to its answer.  Nevertheless, once we concede, as Christianity today does, that the metaphysical primary is not the Individual, but the Collective–the Group–we understand that this is the only possible answer which is consistent with the premise.

*

In Christianity, the Consciousness of the Group is “God”, naturally, and it is His “Sovereign Will” which “controls all things”.  It is “God” then to whom the fleshly incarnations of Himself, the Pastors (and the lesser deities, the Small Group Leaders) appeal, in order to physically and psychologically compel the unwashed masses into “right thinking” and “right behavior”.  Therefore, God compelled you into the Small Group at North Point Ministries (or whatever other neo-Marxist spiritual trap into which you may have fallen), to be instructed and ultimately governed (forced) in the ways of the One True Collective (the “Church”) by those who claim the authority to do so.  And since those who claim this authority are God’s proxies, which makes them God to you, or God qua God, for all relevant intents and purposes, the answer to this discussion question leveled at us above, “Have you ever felt like you  had insight and clarity into someone else’s poor decision?”, is…

Yes.  And no.  As a group member, yes.  As an individual whose depravity only allows him to view reality from the singularity of Self, no.  I am divine, but I am also wicked.  I am aware, and I am also blind.

Let’s break it down.

Yes, of course.  Of course you’ve felt like you had insight and clarity into someone else’s poor decision. And, as corollary to this, of course you’ve been the one to make a poor decision, and thus have had to defer your will and your mind to another person.  Maybe even the person upon which you are now, ironically, passing judgement even as he simultaneously passes judgement upon you.

This ostensibly contradictory answer is utterly demanded by the acceptance of the Group AS Self metaphysic.  As a member of the one True Group you’ve been given the divine perception afforded to everyone who understands his or her nature as entirely a function of the Church, which really means the Authority of the Pastors and their representatives, the subordinate, lesser deities, which include the Small Group Leaders.  Because you have absorbed the explications, explanations, and presumptions of “Sound Doctrine”, you have the divine, unmitigated, and inerrant authority, bestowed by spiritual osmosis,  to pronounce judgement upon anyone, anywhere, at any time, for anything which does not comply forthrightly with said doctrine, regardless of the presence of contexts or circumstances which you could not possibly understand, and may confidently declare the perpetrator utterly ignorant, morally bankrupt, and insane, worthy of all manner of death and destruction.  The slightest disagreement or inconsistency with what you know must be the infallible “Word of God” simply by being a “Church Member” invites you to offer a thoroughly justified condemnation on behalf of the Group, and a demand (disguised as “counsel”, or “advice”) that thinking and behavior be brought to heel..or else.

(As an aside, please realize that understanding of the “Word of God” doesn’t have anything to do with understanding qua understanding at all.  It merely means that one can, if even in the most remedial of ways, parrot back the presumptions, assertions, premises, axioms, and maxims to which he or she pledges fealty as function of their affiliation with the True Collective.)

In other words, because you go to True Church–one approved by the doctrinal standards of “orthodoxy” (whatever that means)–you know everything.  As the Group knows, you also know.

On the flip side, however, you, being an unremitting and unrepentant sinner by nature, categorically depraved and infinitely insufficient to any moral thing, act, or idea, abstract or concrete, you MUST sin, and sin perpetually, because the very fact that you possess an awareness of SELF, as an individual, demands that the entirely of your observance of the entirety of your existence is false.  And more than false, it is the very archetype of evil.  You can do no good thing; you can think no good thing; you can see, hear, and speak no good thing.  Because you ARE, according to the Fall of Man who is Perpetually Falling, no good thing, and absolutely so.

Thus, in equal measure as the enlightened one, bringing the all-seeing eye of the “Church” to bear upon your fellow man to level judgement and command repentance and recompense, you are also the Sinner.  The Evil One.  The one who will make mistakes, because he IS the mistake.  Therefore, as you give your unsolicited rebukes, condemnations, warnings, exhortations, demands, and absolutes to your fellow man, so you will prostrate yourself before his.

Because according to the extremely loose logic of “sound doctrine”, rooted in the Ethical (moral) primary of “Total Depravity” and the metaphysical primary of Existence through Church Membership, the only real purpose of the discussion question at the top of this essay is to promote the following ideal:

You can judge others, but you cannot judge yourself.  Your awareness proves efficacious only when it is applied to the existence of another; but it is utterly incapable of serving you, because you qua you do not possess by nature the existential sufficiency to awareness.  That is, to Truth.

And this eventually distills down into this very evil premise:

You can be the Group, but you cannot be yourself.  And this is because what a seemingly innocuous and innocent little book on small groups is desperately and yet so surreptitiously demanding is that you accept the ideal that you are Evil Self AND Perfect Group, and the paradoxical distinction denies you a reality of your own, which makes you dependent upon that of the Church leadership.  You have insight, and you lack it.  You speak truth to sin, and you wickedly deny sin.  You receive the truth with grace, and you stubbornly resist and worship Satan.  You are both the dark and the light.  The Is and the Is not.  You are Individual inside Collective.

And now, at last, we arrive at the real answer to the question above.  The only one that matters…and they know it.  It’s not about groups, its not about church, its not about God. It’s about control.  The control which flows from a fabricated reality they create for everyone else.  A reality which convinces you that…

You are you and you are not you.

You are an existential contradiction.  A positive added to a negative.  A zero sum.  A blank.  An infinite everything with a nature of infinite nothingness.  In other words…

You’re worse than dead.  You are Death.