All posts by Argo

Me Saying I’m Not You is Not the Same Thing as Me Saying, “There’s Only Me”: A rebuttal to accusations of subjectivism

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , , , , , , , ,

The knee jerk reaction to my ideas is to assume that when I appeal to the SELF–the individual human being–as the metaphysical irreducible and thus the only rational moral and epistemological absolute Standard (“epistemological” in this context meaning, how we know that what we know is in fact true), that I’m making the contention that my SELF is the only salient Self.

Several attempts have been made by people whose intellect I admire to link my ideas to Kantian Subjectivism in this manner…the thought being that since I deny a Standard of Truth and Morality outside of Self, that “reality”–as they call it, “external reality” (an illogical definition entirely) must necessarily be based upon whatever whim I, alone, devise.

Now, it isn’t that I don’t understand why some people believe this, it’s just that I think it is simply because they have been functioning according to the “this or that” dualism of Aristotle vs. Plato for so long that they aren’t able to integrate any truly new ideas.  Indeed, even averring that I am presenting “new” ideas would likely be taken as a grand apostasy.

But it is a logical fallacy to believe that just because I declare that I am ME and YOU are YOU, and absolutely so, that this must mean that I am the only one who actually exists; which is precisely what I am accused of asserting.  The loose logic is that since all knowledge is a function of the senses (it isn’t; its a function of the ability to sense, which is a function of the ability to conceptualize SELF as “he who senses”) which observe “objective reality outside you”then we must assume that “objective reality” is a function of the “cause and effect” of (invisible) physical laws which “govern”.  In short, any appeal to a Standard of Truth except that which the senses first observe is labeled subjectivism.

As ostensibly rational as this argument is, its fatal weakness is that it doesn’t come close to answering the question: What is man?  And as I have submitted on numerous occasions, if you cannot rationally answer that question then the rest of what you believe about anything is immaterial.  If there is no definition of man–and a definition of man cannot be: an absolute function of a reality OUTSIDE himself because that is a rank contradiction, and makes man a direct function of that which is “outside of him”…or said another way, of that which is NOT him–…yes, if there is no definition of man then there can be no relevance to what he believes. Because “he” must be declared something, and even more, something capable of being aware of his own relevance to the existential equation.  And this awareness cannot be a function of that which is outside of him, because that makes his awareness not his own, in fact, but whatever “caused” him.  However I submit that awareness must be an innate function of man’s ability to be himself; anything else removes man from his own consciousness, which makes all appeals to man’s existence a lie.  For a man who is fundamentally unable to be aware, and this awareness of himself, cannot be said to know anything.

Man’s ability to be himself IS his ability to KNOW himself, and his ability to KNOW himself is his ability to conceptualize himself as juxtaposed to the conceptualization of what is NOT himself.  Both the SELF of man and the Environment of man are predicated upon man’s ability to know–to conceptualize–them both.  There is no thing, “inside” or “outside” of man, which is not conceptualized in order to be understood, made relevant and efficacious, and applied to the promotion of man’s identity.  And there is nothing conceptualized which is not a function of man’s inherent ability to conceptualize.

From this I argue that reason is simply the internal rational consistency of the “conceptual paradigm” as I call it (I’m not a linguist by trade; they probably have an “official” name for that to which I am referring).  Meaning, man’s ability to take the concepts he uses to organize and reconcile himself to his environment, and thereby create his own specific identity, cannot contradict one another.

In other words, man’s relationship to his environment cannot be paradoxical (as in “contradictory”), and the only way to assure that this is not the case is to reject  descriptions of reality which are, within the conceptual framework–which is man’s only means by which to reconcile  himSELF to his Environment (the basis for “existence)–mutually exclusive.

For example, if we believe that John Immel (of spiritualtyranny.com, and a friend, a philosophical critic of mine, and a brilliant thinker and deft writer) is both determined by God and yet also has free will, we have violated conceptual consistency, since “determined” and “free-willed” cannot both have the same absolute reference.  John Immel cannot be given the characteristics of abstract concept X and Y when X and Y are conceptual opposites.  And this means that the assertion must be false.  John Immel cannot be both determined and have free will, because it defies reason (conceptual consistency) and thus cannot be a valid explication of “reality”, since “reality” is, in fact, its own concept.  And if reality is a concept then its definition must be non-paradoxical; that is, it cannot be defined by conceptual characteristics which are antipodal.  If we attempt to explain “truth” by appealing to conceptual opposites as its fundamental basis we have violated reason; and since reason is the only way to arrive at truth, we cannot violate reason and still claim truth.

Further, if truth is the means by which man’s SELF, man’s identity, is affirmed, a violation of truth is in fact a violation of morality, since man is the root conceptualizing agent and thus all truth rests with him as reference.  If he is denied, nothing can be called good (or evil), because “good” can no longer be defined, since the means to apprehend truth, man’s ability to conceptualize SELF, is invalidated.  Truth and morality are corollaries, I submit, and both are a function of reason.

Therefore to concede conceptual paradox as the basis for “reality” is both false AND evil, is my point.  Man’s existence is affirmed by truth; and since man is he who possesses the ability to conceptualize, he is the one whom truth serves.  And for truth not to serve him is evil.  Put simply:  insofar as truth and morality are corollaries, so are evil and lie.

*

That which is said to be true cannot be predicated upon conceptual opposites.  Concepts are used by man to promote the primary concept of SELF upon the Environment, and this is not possible if those concepts used to promote the SELF are found to contradict on their way to concluding with the SELF as the metaphysical absolute.  This is the philosophical equivalent of doing a maze puzzle and claiming you arrived at the “END” by drawing a straight line from “START”.  You cannot blow through all the dead ends and say you’ve correctly arrived at the logical conclusion.  It just doesn’t work that way.

According to all of the above rationale, in order to condemn me as a subjectivist means that one must show how I can proclaim conceptual consistency as reason, and reason as truth, and truth as goodness, while at the same time denying that other human beings can be conceptualized any other way except as full-fledged metaphysical singularities.  In other words, as THEMSELVES, or OTHER SELVES.

But here’s the problem with doing that:  Since they can recognize ME as not THEM, and consistently and empirically use and apply the concept of I, and ME, and MYSELF, just as I do, it is impossible to define them except as SELVES without violating the conceptual paradigm and thus violating reason and truth and morality.  Therefore, in the interest of maintaining conceptual consistency, according to my philosophy, I must assume that I am NOT the only SELF in existence.  It would be a violation of the conceptual paradigm to call ME the only true SELF, and then relegate all other human beings to the status of mere objects.  Rationally, this simply does not work.  A chair, a car, a tree, a breeze do not use the pronoun “I” or “me”; nor do they refer to me as “YOU”.  Not even Artificial Intelligence (which is a completely false threat, and is based on the assumption that human awareness is a function of unconscious particles coming together as a function of the “causal” laws of physics which “govern”…which, um…yeah, unconscious cannot by defintion = conscious)…yes, not even Artificial Intelligence can refer to its own “style”, its hopes and dreams, placing itself at the very center of a conceptual paradigm by which it is understood by the very structure of what comprises it, that Truth is meant to serve it, and not the other way around.  A talking computer cannot pontificate upon or exegete its feelings or dreams or make itself as the subject of a “future” or “past”.  Only the human being can do that.

And even if the computer could do this it would not invalidate my argument; for we define a sentient being not by its body or its “objective” material form, but its ability to recognize itself as its own existential constant; its own metaphysical absolute.  “I” means not the body, it means the root by which all that is defined as existing, as an IS, has any relevance or meaning or purpose or truth or goodness at all.  In other words “I” is a metaphysical concept, not a physical one.

But what my critics argue is that somehow my philosophy demands that I observe humanity as a thing, not as a SELF; which I declare is impossible according to my rational plumb line: reason.  Which I define as conceptual consistency.

On the contrary, it is not my, but their objectivist, empiricist philosophy which demands human beings must be things, not metaphysical singularities; not sentient agents; not thinking SELVES.  They are the ones who demagogue “objective reality” as being a function of the “laws of physics”, which are unseen, unknowable apart from “material reality”, and unable to effect or affect anything at all absent material reality first, and man’s ability to conceptually organize reality before that.

It is their philosophy, not mine, which must deny any that another human being outside of oneself has any intrinsic character.  Their philosophy must proclaim consciousness an illusion and assume that all references to one’s own awareness are either illusory or madness.

It is their philosophy, not mine, which must deny any real efficacy of the senses, and ignore another person’s appeals to “self” and “me”, and to reference “you” and “us”, and dismiss them as merely the predetermined ramblings of programmed organic robots who have no actual understanding of such concepts because such thinking agents simply cannot rationally exist in the “real world” of the “objective” causal universe.  Outside of oneself of course.  After all, someone must be privy to the “truth”.

It is their philosophy, not mine, which must deny human conceptual consistency as that which is reasonable, fundamentally destroying and rendering inert both truth and morality.  It is their philosophy, not mine, which must observe human beings as external objects which can have nothing to do with those concepts which affect the “objective, observing self”, because “self” in this paradigm can only be defined exclusively as the one who can observe his own consciousness–“me, and no one else”–and thus the only one who can claim to properly observe and thus parse reality “objectively”.

They, not me, must assume that “future”, “past”, “love”, “want”, “need”, “hope”, etc. can have nothing to do with others they observe, because they do not concede that a rational conceptual definition of “other person” has anything to do with reality.  Other human beings are not products of their own ability to conceptualize SELF, thereby referring to themselves in the first person singular and placing themselves at the center of the conceptual paradigm, just as they do.

It is their philosophy, not mine, which subordinates all humanity to the subjective whims of the only one who can, by their rationale, be “real”.

And who is that?

It is he who calls himself: the observer.

But I do not preach the reality of the observer.  I preach the reality of the SELF, who must, in order to rationally define SELF, must define OTHER as his metaphysical equal.  Equally aware and equally valuable and equally entitled to the sum and substance of their own lives.

Get the Metaphysics Right and You’ll Get Everything Right

Metaphysics, , ,

Put on your thinking caps, ladies and gents.  This is no cakewalk of political pontification; no casual stroll down the primrose path of the subjective symbolism of flags or the contradiction of government to the individual metaphysic.  No, you’ll need to turn off the background music and send the kids out to play for a while.

If you are so inclined, of course.  Around here, no one forces anyone else to spend the capital of their own time in any way other than as they wish. I’m just giving you fair warning.  Gonna hit the pause button on this one a few times.  This will be decidedly non-intuitive.  But remember, that doesn’t make it wrong.  Only rational inconsistency makes it wrong.  And if you can point any out, please let me know in the comments section.

*

In order for you to know, believe, or do anything, YOU must first be a part of the equation…YOU must be endemic to–you must be the reference for the relevancy, efficacy, purpose, and meaning of that knowledge, belief, or action.  In other words, without YOU, there is no knowledge, belief, or action, because those things–in conceptual form or otherwise–can have no meaning absent the frame of reference of yourSELF.  Without YOU, and your innate, inherent, and absolute ability to be YOU, I assert that there is no existence of anything, period, and the same is true for me.  For without the Self, by which the entirety of one’s existence is referenced, and of which there is no other absolute and and thus constant context, there can be no reference for existence by which existence qua existence can have any meaning.

Now, before you raise an index finger to protest this idea it is vital to notice that even those who proclaim the objective existence of things in the “objective material reality outside ourselves” do, and in fact must, declare such a notion only from the absolute context of themselves, that is, from the absolute and inexorable frame of reference of Self…and this context is for them, as it is for everyone, categorical.  No one can observe life/reality/existence, beliefs, ideas, actions, emotions, aesthetics, etc. from outside themselves, by definition.  This fact renders anyone claiming to know of an “objective reality outside themselves” either a weaver of false threads or at the very least unaware of contradictory “logic” of such a notion.  Even those “out of body experiences” about which we occasionally hear from people who are said to have died for a minute or two on the operating table still must speak of such an experience from a singular consciousness; a singular observational vantage point; a singular perspective; a singular context of Self.  They always speak of it as MY out-of-body experience, not OUR out-of-body experience.  And this is because human beings have no collective frame of reference, but only a singular existential perspective–that of Self.  There is no such thing as a dual, or group, metaphysic.  The reason why you always refer to yourself as “I” is because you cannot possess a collective frame of reference for your existence.  At the end of it all…at the end of every philosophy, no matter what you are told and no matter how desperately some Marxist proselyt might wish it to be otherwise, there is no such thing as “WE” except conceptually.  There is only YOU, period.  You ARE; and you ARE, absolutely.  There is no such thing as a group metaphysic.  It is a lie.  Which is why all civilizations rooted in altruism (the idea that man’s greatest moral good is to sacrifice the Self for the Group) always exist in abject misery and inevitably terminate at death.

As I was saying, the individual metaphysic then necessarily contradicts the idea of an “objective reality outside” a person.  The implication is that regardless of someone’s own frame of reference–regardless of the constant of the observational perspective of their own SELF–there is nevertheless an “objective reality outside them” which continues to be what it is and do what it does.  That is, they don’t necessarily have to exist in order for “objective reality” to exist.

The problem, however, is that there isn’t any way to prove this objectively (not to mention rationally), since there isn’t any way to observe reality but from the context of themselves.  They cannot proclaim an autonomous “reality” outside of them if their awareness of such a reality is always a function of their absolute frame of reference.  They must assume that they are the source of “objective reality”.  Without THEM, there is no way to claim that anything is in fact real.  Objective reality is a function of the individual’s existence, not the other way around.

Here’s the irony:

A person’s own ability to be themselves within a setting (i.e. the Universe) absolutely referenced to and thus given meaning and purpose by themselves is the only means by which he or she can express the (false) idea that the Universe exists utterly, fully, and autonomously without them.  This has the contrary effect of rendering themselves utterly irrelevant to the very idea they are promoting.  If everything exists outside of them, then what they think or believe or do is entirely irrelevant to the existence of that which is outside of them, by definition, which means they cannot possibly be integrated with reality, operating somehow from an infinitely separate frame of reference than the reality they observe (and how they can even observe a reality outside themselves is another problem), which means they can have no reference for their own existence, which makes the whole idea moot, as opposed to true.  And if what they think or say or do, being an absolute function of themselves (which it is, by definition), is irrelevant, then they themselves, in their very person, are irrelevant.  Which is to say that the “objective reality” outside of them will do what it does regardless of whether they exist or not.  For how can one advocate practical interaction with an environment which is absolutely objective and autonomous without the individual?

In order for man to manifest himself practically and efficaciously upon his environment, man must exist as an absolute part of it, which means that we cannot separate the existence of the individual from the existence of his environment.  There is no rational way to mitigate or compromise on the distinction.  If man is, and his environment is, then they both are…equally and inseparably .  (So then, where does the distinction occur, since it is not and cannot be a physical one? An interesting question for you to consider.)

Either man is a fully existent and completely integrated to his environment or he is fully, materially, distinct.  And the latter makes it impossible to argue that man exists at all because it puts an insurmountable chasm between man and that upon which he must manifest himself–as a juxtapositional reference–in order to claim that he is, in fact, observably himself from that which he is not, this being the basic and essential criteria in declaring that some thing–some unique thing–exists.  That is, in order to define what something is, the thing must be referenced to that which it is NOT.  Otherwise, it simply cannot be defined, because that which is infinite (absent a reference by which to juxtapose its unique and particular location in the Universe), or having no end, cannot be said to be “this”, because there is no “that” by which to make “this” mean anything specific.  (I know this is a bit confusing, hang in there.) So again, it cannot be defined.  And if it cannot be defined then it cannot be said to exist; either to itself nor to anything, or anyone, else.

This why I have denied the idea that God is an infinite Being. (Though he does have an infinite metaphysic, like the human individual does, which is a little different, because in the metaphysical sense, “infinity” is better defined as absolutely, meaning that man and God are absolutely themselves, in existential essence…their Self, which is their standard and reference for existence, is singular, not collective).  Because if God was in fact infinite, then He could not be defined as God (He could not even define Himself as God) because nothing could exist besides Him, which would remove any reference by which anyone (“anyone”, likewise,not being able to exist in the presence of a Being which is infinite) could know Him as God.  God would not be God, He would be an infinite IS, which is, practically speaking, the exact same thing as being an infinite IS NOT.  Meaning for something to be infinitely something is functionally identical to being infinitely nothing.  For there is no relevancy to what is infinite, because nothing else can exist for it to be relevant TO.  And if it isn’t relevant TO anything, that must necessarily includes itself, which, being infinite, and never ending, never ceasing, cannot be conceptualized, which means it cannot be integrated into the organizational paradigm (language) by which all things in the Universe are identified and granted efficacy.

Now–and I touched upon this in the parentheses above–it is important to understand that there is a distinction between the infinity of essence and the finiteness of material objects in the material universe which are given meaning and purpose by the human ability to integrate them into into a conceptual paradigm by which people organize and thus “know” their own environment.  The infinity of essence–the absolute metaphysic– is what I might describe as the infinite ability to be whatever something is; the idea that if something IS it can never be an IS NOT, nor could what is something be a direct function of nothing.  For example, take the doctrine of ex nihilo, or the idea that God created the Universe out of nothing.  Even a third grader can understand why this must be false; for nothing and something are mutually exclusive, where “nothing” is merely an abstract, conceptual placeholder, like the mathematical placeholder of zero, to describe the absence of a thing with respect to a specific situation or context.  For example, “John is doing nothing at home today”.  We all understand that John, because he IS, cannot thus be literally doing nothing.  For at the very least John is existing.  “Nothing” then is merely an abstraction humans use for the purpose of communication.  It is a linguistic tool, much like “zero” is a mathematical one.

The finiteness of material “existence”, or of material objects is based upon the human ability, as I previously mentioned, to conceptualize what he/she observes.  This is the ability of the sentient–the self aware–agent to make a conceptual distinction, via observation, between what he/she is and what he/she is not to an infinite degree (though this is not akin to “observational empiricism”; or “scientific empiricism”…which is the idea that the senses are the source of all human knowledge, as opposed to the ability of the human to conceptualize the Self as being the source of all human knowledge).  In other words, material distinction is a function of the ability to be self-aware (some might call it consciousness, but I think this muddies the issue; for “ability” is not consciousness), not a function of “objective material reality”.

Please understand that I am not being contradictory here.  I am not suggesting there is any such real, actual thing as the finiteness of material objects.  I do not, in other words, acknowledge the existence and efficacious power of “space”.  For space, or that which is the absence of objects, cannot by definition be an object itself which separates other objects into some kind of infinite vacuum of themselves.  Rather, “space” is merely a way human beings conceptualize the relative movement between objects they observe as distinct, but this does not make the objects actually distinct.  The ability to observe objects as distinct is rooted absolutely in the human ability to conceptualize their own Self; and this necessitates the ability to conceptualize what their own Self is NOT, and infinitely so.  The infinite ability to make distinctions between what you are and what you are NOT maintains the consistency of the infinity of existence, or of essence.  In other words, the infinity of existence is manifest in the infinite number of ways you can conceptualize the distinctions between Self and Environment.  You are not a cup, a car…you are not even the parts of your body…your hand, your hip, your kidney, or your brain, necessarily, when speaking observationally and conceptually.  You are not a table, the sky, the tree, God, Joe, that weird kid who stared at you in fourth grade, a bird, the number three, a magic trick, a preposition, the article “the”…and on and on the distinctions go.  You see, there is fundamentally no difference between infinity and an infinite number of objects moving in an infinite number of ways, in root essence…they are tautological.  But what renders a distinction between these two notions, and an infinitely meaningful distinction at that, is the human ability to, again, infinitely conceptualize the difference between Self and Not Self, the only purpose of which, incidentally, is for the promotion and perpetuation of Self.

(NOTE:  The question of how the human ability to infinitely conceptualize the distinction between Self and Not Self can be efficaciously manifest in a Universe where there is no such thing as space or time (these are conceptual abstractions)–where everything is utterly rooted infinity–is another article.  I will get to that in the near future.)

*

 Getting back to this idea that the human being exists “outside” of “objective reality”–there is no scientific “evidence” (the only real evidence is reason), and no rationally consistent philosophical argument, which can prove that the human body–that which we identify with the individual Self, as being indistinguishable from his/her ability to manifest existence–is somehow existentially distinct from the rest of the Universe.  For it is merely stating the rank obvious to say that all of the chemical compounds and fundamental particles which can be found in “objective reality outside of us” can also be found inside of us, that is, our bodies.  It is likewise stating the obvious to say that if the human body can interact with the “objective reality outside of us” then the human body must have categorical integration with such a reality, which makes the human body equally as real, thus rendering any distinction between the human body and a “reality outside of him/her” impossible.

The difference then is in man’s capacity, his absolute ability to recognize himself conceptually, in the practical form of his body (which I describe as the first fruits of man’s labor–the work of his own existing, which no one else can do for him), as distinct from the environment.  The distinction then is a function of man’s sentient frame of reference for Self–his own absolute and infinite perspective, and this, again, to re-re-reiterate, is a product of his own ability to know, and to thus be, what he is.  Existence then, and knowledge, and thus truth and morality (those things from which knowledge is derived) are a direct function of man’s ability to BE.  YOU must be YOU, before anything can be known, or believed, or done.  Without you, in other words, there cannot be anything “outside” of you.  Period.  You are the beginning and end of existence.  And not simply your existence, but existence absolutely.

Limited Government is Absolutely Impossible

General Philosophy

You cannot have “limited” government because you cannot limit an absolute.

Let me explain.

In its true essence, “government” is an abstraction.  In other words, “government” has no inherent, autonomous, material (what I would call “actual”) value absent the objective and specific reference of the individual human being.  But by the false Platonist logic so pervasive in the world today, government is considered a full-on autonomous and active entity/agent in and of itself, possessing a singular and distinct will and causality, and, most relevantly/dangerously, the inherent mandated FORCE to compel outcomes.  And since “government” is absolute, this force is absolutely of government.  Thus, and necessarily, it can only be used in service to government.

What the assumption of “government-as-material-and-sentient” does is effectively bring to “life” what is in reality an absolute abstraction.  Now, I say “absolute” because outside of a material reference, abstractions are absolutely what they are.  For example, “blue”, absent a reference to some material thing which is blue (like a blue hat, or a blue car) cannot be defined except as itself.  Which is to say that”blue”, absent material, tangible reality, can only be defined as “blue”.  In other words, blue is blue…is blue is blue is blue.  It is what it is.  “Blue” in a vacuum of itself is absolutely–is infinitely–blue.  It is its own reference.

With respect then to the conceptual abstraction of “government”, once we give it the authority to compel outcomes, materially speaking–that is, effecting outcomes upon humanity and its material environment–we have conceded that what is absolute–what is infinite–has a not only the endemic power but also the endemic right to thrust its infinity of Self upon the world, subjugating everything else to itself, which it must do in order for it to maintain the integrity of its inviolable infinite nature.  When the conceptual abstraction is somehow (never rationally…it takes a sophist argument) given its own autonomous “reality” and “existence” there is no room for anything or anyone else.

In truth, a conceptual abstraction such as–well, let’s stick with “blue”–is a function of objects…what we might describe as material and tangible artifacts, accessible to the senses.  These objects are referenced to man…meaning they are given their own conceptual definitions.  These are thus the non-abstract concepts.  “Hat”, for example, is still a concept, but it is not abstract because it is a function of a specific (or specifically observed) material object; as opposed to “blue” which is not, itself, a function of any specific material object.  It is a subcategory of the the abstraction of “color”.  Just like the number “four” is a subcategory of the abstraction “integers”, a subcategory of the abstraction “numbers”, a subcategory of the abstraction “mathematics”.

These concepts are devised in the interest of promoting humanity’s comfort and existence, nothing more.  Any attempt to make these concepts something else…any effort to ascribe to them innate, autonomous characteristics, a unique and separate metaphysic and power, is artifice, either wittingly or unwittingly.  Do not doubt me.  It is impossible to rationally ascribe to any concept some actualizing force or metaphysically unique existence.  And all attempts to act from such notions must ultimately end in the destruction of humanity.

So, to reiterate: conceptual abstractions are referenced to material objects (which are given conceptual definitions, thereby making them non-abstract concepts) which are referenced to individual human beings. But in the Platonist world in which we live this equation is turned into its exact opposite, and humanity is referenced to objects (meaning that man becomes a direct function of the “objective” material universe “outside” of him–molecules, atoms, particles), and these objects are a direct function of conceptual abstractions.

These conceptual abstractions can be almost anything, but the most common ones are: the Laws of Physics (or Nature) which “govern” (and which, you will notice, are “discovered”, as opposed to devised by humans), the Church, the Race, the Common Good/your Brother’s Good (Keeper), God’s Will, and the daddy of them all, and that which all of them inexorably imply, the Government/State.  And all of these “institutions” are ascribed one thing in common, and it is the only thing which really matters in the end:  Total Authority

For example, when we speak of limiting government power, notice how it is assumed that it must done through the apparatus of government.  This effectively makes any “decrease” in power really an increase… there is no difference.  There is no such thing as something self-limiting itself; this is pure contradiction.  The power of government to “self-limit” is in fact a direct function and therefore a direct extension of its power.  Thus, as I have argued, when we institute a conceptual abstraction which is and can only be infinite in its essence and imbue it with causal power, it must and can only increase while the individual must and can only decrease.  There is no decrease within the absolute of “government”.  You see, because it is absolute it absolutely increases.  While the individual–who cannot by definition be absolute if the concept to which he categorically ties his very existence is absolute–must therefore absolutely decrease.

In the presence of these all powerful magical, ethereal, transcendent causal abstractions which, it is assumed, must by their nature govern man (and this then absolutely), the Standard–the singularity; the non-relative constant–is no longer the human individual who perceives all life and reality and truth from his own singular, inexorable, indivisible, absolute and infinite frame of reference…from Self.  Rather, the individual becomes a direct and determined function of a Standard of Truth and Morality outside of himself, to which he is utterly and existentially obligated to subordinate (sacrifice) himself.  Because man is no longer a direct function of himself, he is considered a direct function of that new Standard…that abstraction which must fully govern him by its very nature, because man is an absolute extension of said Standard when the metaphysics are boiled down to their irreducible conclusion.

Okay, here we go.

This means that human consciousness and volition is an illusion.  Any claim to an individual identity of Self must be recognized as a lie; and in order for the individual to access truth–which means reality–he must reject all claims to innate epistemological adequacy because of the absence of any individual metaphysic.  Man can know nothing except the governing Rule…except that upon which his very survival, his very existence, his very Self, depends.   In other words, the individual must have his reality interpreted for him by that which is said to govern him, because alone, he is unable to grasp it, his consciousness being illusory and merely a product of his own inherently depraved nature–that is, a nature which makes existence of himself and therefore to himself impossible.  The only purpose of individual man’s life then is to sacrifice himself to whatever conceptual abstraction he decides he is dependent upon for his very survival, which, again, means his very existence.  And how many people do you know will ever acknowledge the idea that man can survive without the power and rule of a Central Authority to govern him “for his own good”…that is, without a formal (read “conceptually abstract”) codification of rules by a formally (read again “conceptually abstract”) established, authoritative institution which must inevitably and ultimately compel man by force into “right” thinking and behavior?

I have proposed that man does not derive his morality from obeying laws, but rather by his own absolute, infinite ability to be himself.  I have asserted this:  that reason dictates that the only rational and thus true moral Standard is the individual human being, and thus only direct violations of individuals merit and demand justice; that man derives his morality and innate Truth by being himself, a premise which, taken to its logical conclusion, means that man must recognized the inherent right of ALL individuals to be themselves.

When I present my assertion to even some of the most enlightened thinkers I know I am met with the response: “How do you render justice for any violations of individuals without the codification of Law as a rubric?”  With respect, this is merely a way of justifying the absolute authority of the State. What this means is that unless a specific group of individuals get together and come to a consensus on what constitutes morality, as a function of an abstract Standard (the “Law”), which is a function of their group, abstractly defined as the “State” or “Government” (in order to put distance between themselves and the inevitable destruction such a group must inflict upon all life and reality–to give themselves a moral get-out-of-jail free card), and then create the necessary army to enforce such a code by threat of violence upon another group of men, there can be no such thing as justice.  Justice then becomes the abstraction to which all individuals (except for those who somehow get a metaphysical and epistemological pass on their own inherently inadequate human metaphysic) is obligated.  Justice becomes merely then a euphemism for “government”.

And therefore what this means when all is said and done  is that a certain man or group of men must, by some magical/divine/cosmic mandate, rule all other men.  Completely.

There is no such thing as “limiting” this kind of power, because the power to govern is the power to claim that everyone else owes you the entirety of their lives because humanity can only be existentially manifest by being a direct function of that which enables its survival: the government.  

The idea of limiting that which is the absolute reference, and therefore the absolute purpose and objective, of the entirety of human life is patently absurd on its face.  To concede that man needs governing is to concede that man does not possess the metaphysical attributes necessary to live as an autonomous, self-actualizing, self-realizing, singular agent.  This being the case, man, who thus needs governing to exist, absolutely, needs government, absolutely.

*

You cannot limit the power of a conceptual abstraction which is given material “reality” and “causality” by a humanity which has abdicated its  natural right, moral obligation, and rational claim to exist of and to itself.  You can however limit the the power of individuals (which is all government really is–a collection of individuals) over you, but this of course demands that you appropriate a metaphysic of the singular human Self as the Standard of all Morality and Truth.  But getting people to even consider such a thing is an exercise in severe perseverance and frustration, never mind convincing them to accept it.  Nevertheless, only when we accept such a metaphysic can we understand and aver the existential truth that no one person or group of people may rationally, morally, and thus legitimately exist as a proxy for anyone else (which is precisely what the government does; it is its entire purpose).  And no one person or group of people may rationally, morally, and thus legitimately commandeer another individual’s property, their time, labor, or lives, nor compel their behavior by violence or threats of violence.

In short, because all people are autonomous in their person, having an absolute frame of reference for life–themselves–then all people are existentially equal.  Which means that it is not rational, and is in fact immoral, to argue that it is necessary and inevitable that man must be governed–that some people must be ruled by other people, in any capacity whatsoever.

Do Not Violate an Individual’s Body; DO Violate Their Sensibilities if it Suits You

General Philosophy, , , ,

Sensibility (opinion, based upon one’s own frame of reference) is much too broad, subjective, and capricious to be considered a practical moral standard.  For anyone can change their mind, and they almost certainly will, given the ever shifting nature of personal context.  For example, if I appropriate a new idea (I would argue it’s an axiom), such as “everyone is entitled to decide what a particular symbol means to them personally”, then I will be less prone–or not prone at all–to taking offense at symbols which might have previously offended me.  Clearly then it is patently irrational for others to not display the symbols they hold dear because of my “offense”.  And this is because my offense has been shown, by virtue of my decision to accept a new premise, to be a poor standard of the morality of other people’s behavior…it is obviously capricious, given to change depending upon what I accept as true.  And since no one else can have any control over my sensibilities, because these sensibilities are a function of my own unique and individual perspective, when I declare them the moral standard I hold everyone else hostage to my personal whim. This is not only irrational, it is unreasonable.  And more than that.  It is evil.  Ideas, opinions, beliefs, superstitions…sure, these things are fine in the pursuit of one’s goals and in the living out of one’s life, but because of their vacillating nature, and because they are a direct function of the singular perspective of each individual, they do not make a good moral standard. In short, ideas and thoughts are fundamentally abstract, and abstractions, being intangible, cannot be references themselves, because they don’t have existence.  They must be referenced to something which does exist; which has tangible, empirical essence; which is objective; which does not change; which is not a matter of opinion; which is not dependent upon any one person’s perspective; which cannot be said to somehow “exist” beyond the perception of the senses…the senses being the means by which we manifest ourselves upon our environment; which makes them the means by which we organize–to efficacious, rational, and thus moral purposes–our lives. On the other hand, the individual human body is an extremely practical standard.  It is not a matter of opinion or preference.  For anyone can change their minds, but in equal absolute measure no one can change their bodies.  We can all observe each others body, but in equal absolute measure none of us can observe each others sensibilities.  We can have a rational context for each others bodies; we cannot  have a rational context for each others sensibilities, or opinions, or ideas, or perspectives, because those are a function of absolute individual existence.  We can sympathize, we can empathize, we can commiserate, we can agree, we can love, but we cannot BE another person.  And so we can never have access to what they really think, nor ever absolutely or fully understand just why they think it. Do not violate another person’s body, but never enslave your own mind or body or actions to the subjective sensibilities of other people.  The former is the philosophy of lovers of life and peace; the latter the philosophy of tyrants, despots, murderers, deceivers, sociopaths, narcissists, Marxists, Fascists, demons, and the walking dead.

Liberty is Impossible Because of Man’s Total Depravity

Metaphysics, , ,

The presumption is that man is fundamentally depraved and thus inadequate to his own existence. In other words, man, if left to himself, will by nature seek to torment, exploit, and murder his fellow man and himself.  Of course, what is never explained is how those in government get a metaphysical pass on their own absolute depravity. But we are not supposed to ask these kinds of questions.

In short, it always boils down to metaphyics; the question “What is man?” forms the basis of every political, religious, and moral discussion the world over.  These discussions are fundamentally philosophical, and the fundamental of philosophy is metaphysics.

And this is why ostensibly rational human beings can ask the ironical questions “Liberty is good, yes, but what of the inevitably destructive consequences of too much Liberty; TOO much freedom? Liberty, but at what cost to humanity?” And they ask these questions whilst completely oblivious to the irony.

The assumption that man is metaphysically flawed and therefore inadequate to his own existence makes liberty for man categorically impossible.

And so, since the assumption is that man is fundamentally depraved by nature, it is avered that the only way man can truly exist is in a collective. Thus, we get the collectivist metaphysic so prevalent in the world and is, I submit, at the very heart of all governments and all religious institutions–which are simply governments themselves. Man can only be “himself” in any relevant or efficacious way by identifying with this group or that.

This is why there is such a push to nationalism and militarism and symbolism in almost all countries, even as groups within those SAME countries are pitted against each other; and this in order to maintain and promote the de facto premise that groups by their very nature must assert their moral mandate to engage in belligerency against ALL those on the “outside”–a mandate which is merely a function of the group’s rote existence.

The individual we are taught must be sacrificed to the group, not only for the good of the many, but–and this is the truly insidious part–for the good of HIMSELF. Which is a rank contradiction that is also never addressed; because there is no answer for this evil idea.

The Ironically Titled Movie “Inside Out”: How it teaches the collectivist metaphysic of “Outside In”

Metaphysics, , , , , , , , ,

Let’s get to the issue at hand here: the collectivist philosophical irony of thinking that what is clearly an outside–in metaphysic–that is, man is a direct and absolute function of his environment–is really something which can relevantly include the individual man; what I would call the “inside”, or the Self, of man. I aver that this is the deception being propagated by the new animated Pixar film, “Inside Out”.

The message implied by the movie is basically the same message implied by American culture in 2015 in general, and it is that the individual somehow stands to gain by accepting the idea that all he or she is is a function of what they experience…of the causal universe; of what happens when the “discovered” physical laws which are absolute and inviolable, and somehow exist in an infinite, unseen vacuum of their own perfect and self-contained integrity, knock one thing into another thing, and then those things into other things, and so on and so forth until “you” appear.

And this is the root and unavoidable conclusion of this message:  that you are both you and NOT you.  That you have emotions and you don’t have emotions.  That you benefit from understanding these emotions and what they do and what they contribute and you don’t benefit.  Because you somehow exist and yet do not exist.  That somehow one times zero can equal something NOT zero.  That you are a direct function of your environment, and your emotional experiences attest to this, and yet, this in spite of the glaring and overt contradiction in the statement “YOU are a DIRECT function of your environment”.  For it does not take but a remedial understanding of logic and a cursory glance at reason to ascertain that if one is a direct function of his environment, then one cannot possibly exist in the first place…which renders the statement itself patently false, and thus inevitably destructive and murderous should it ever be implemented in any practical way  upon a society.  And by “society”, I mean individuals.

Now, let’s pepper the assertion “You are a direct function of your environment” with some educational (and ostentatious) parentheses, in order that we may render to it a proper translation and explication:

You are a direct (read, “absolute and inexorable”) function of your environment (read, “laws of nature”; read “determinative forces”; read “the causal universe”; read “someONE needs to be in charge of the masses because they can only possess the illusion of consciousness, which will be a disaster for them (read “the ruler’s self-assumed power”) if they ever decide to exist for and to themselves; read “group metaphysic”; read “destruction for the sake of destruction”).

And thus is revealed this formula:

Absolute causality = absolute determinism = absolute collectivism = group metaphysic = inherent vacuum of definitions/meaning/purpose for said group which any given member of the group at any given moment is unable to provide due to the very nature of the group metaphysic (e.g. the illusion of individual consciousness) = a select number of “divinely-appointed” rulers who must compel the unenlightened masses into “right” thinking and behavior = the categorical sacrifice of the individual for the group = destruction for destruction’s sake since without the individual and without a perpetual and external “threat” to the group there is no reference for the group in the first place = perpetual group vs. individual antagonism (wherein the individual is always collectivized into a rival group, since the illusion of individual existence must be maintained in order for the leadership to convince people of the need to passively accept and willingly offer up their own self-sacrifice) = rationally vapid, morally nebulous, never-ending calls to overt nationalism almost exclusively limited to unfettered pro-militarism, seemingly incongruously paired with the Balkanization  of society into competing groups who villify each other and vie for some illusion of power within the Central Authority structure which is in reality restricted solely to those “called” to lead the group by the mysterious and cosmic Divine Will.  And thus, the formula becomes circular, repeating itself over and over and over again, with literally no end in sight until nature alone finally brings about the end of humanity.

Only the individual can end the cycle, which is nothing short of hell on earth (or hell in general); but this necessitates that the individual become the absolute existential constant, fully of himself and to himself, and this necessitates an almost total re-defining and re-codifying of the accepted human metaphysical premise.  And given the pervasive and almost inextricably planted notions of Man-as-Extension-of-a-Causal-Universe averred by even the most trenchant and brilliant of libertarians and rationalists, I do not see an end in sight, if there even is one at all.  I mean, I see it for myself, because I live it with the understanding that my life is not a function simply of my environment, and that in some way, in some form, I, via my acceptance of my SELF as the only universal constant by which anything has any rational meaning at all I will perpetuate that Self irrespective of the environment or other people’s irrational ideas, and that death has no more claim upon my existence than “blue” or “left” or “heavy” or Planck’s Constant or any other concept which man has decided that though he created it, and he is the sole reference for which it can have any relevancy or usefulness,  nevertheless he is entirely subject to it, unto both life and death.

Which ironically (though this irony goes unnoticed) renders life and death one and the same.  Meaning that if you concede the moment you are born you begin to die, then logically you assert that the moment you come alive is the moment death lays claim to your existence.  Thus, life = death.  And since not even these two basic concepts can serve any rational purpose to any form of efficacy, because they lack even a nascent facade of practical meaning, what difference does it make what we think or do?  What difference does anything make when we declare death a direct, inevitable, and absolute function of life?

Here’s the answer you are looking for:  It doesn’t. Because we have no claim to SELF, because we have sacrificed it to the very concepts which are supposed to promote us.  For shame!

So..in short, you were born for the sole and determined purpose of dying.  And that makes you literally no different from any collectivist who may demand your sacrifice for his pleasure (sorry…the “group’s” pleasure”); from the collectivist you claim to reject; and your claims no different than claims you pretend to trample.

No.  Sorry.  It isn’t as easy as you would like, nor as you would think.  Rational consistency, it seems, itself must be sacrificed in service to “truth”, right libertarians?

Time to think a bit more about things.

*

The basic epistemological chain of reasoning, which bespeaks of the collectivist, determinist metaphysic (as I shall explain), on display in the movie “Inside Out” is this:  Your emotions are a function of your environment, and you are a function of your emotions. Which makes you a function of your environment (your environment = emotions = you, which means environment = you), according to transitive property.  Which is in perfect harmony with the group metaphysic.  Since you are a function of the very “laws of nature” which govern all reality, and therefore existence, you cannot really lay a claim to “yourself”, nor can you claim to possess any real truth because, again, there is no such thing as “you”.  “You” are just like everyone else, who really isn’t anyone else.  For everyone is a function of the same, inalienable, inviolable laws which govern everything, and so there is no means for you, individually, to obtain truth, or knowledge of any kind, or morality of any kind, or existence of any kind, except it be bestowed upon you from the outside, just as your existence is.  And the only ones who can do that are those who (in some manner or fashion, usually under the guise of a state “ruler” or “leader” or “pastor” or “priest” or “king”…some manner of “divine” proxy) have been somehow specially “called” to represent to the masses of humanity those forces (God’s Divine and Sovereign Will, the Laws of Nature, the Essence of the Party, or the Race, or the Culture, or the Nation, or the Tribe) which govern them absolutely.  How they get  a pass on their own absolute group metaphysic and their own insular and total determinism is a “mystery” punted into the cosmic abyss.  They never explain it because they cannot–for even they are merely lowly representatives of the infinite Will, they will say.  And even if they did explain it to you, you wouldn’t understand anyway because your lack of individual awareness makes you an nsufficient vessel to contain such lofty knowledge.

In other words you wouldn’t understand it even if they told you; and if you did understand it you would abjectly concede it, which makes understanding it quite irrelevant.  You would simply agree that it is rational; you would have no questions to ask; thus, there would be no discussion…no defense of it.  You would be a “called” one, fit to rule and to lead and to cajole and compel and to sacrifice and to profit and to absorb.  And you certainly wouldn’t question that.  For the benefit of such a role would be self-evident and readily apparent, particularly when it is in perfect keeping with the Divine Will.

*

If you see the movie “Inside Out”, or if you have seen it, you will notice or have noticed that at no time does the ability to maintain a rationally consistent conceptual paradigm ever enter the discussion.  Concepts, in other words, are presumed ipso facto…that is, they simply exist as the universal absolutes which compel material outcomes in the environment to which human beings have a corresponding, determined and predetermined emotional reaction.  This chain of causality does not change, you will also notice or have noticed, from infancy through adulthood.  Human beings have bestowed upon them, somehow, language, which is merely the codification and cohesion of concepts (abstractions)  into a practical linguistic framework allowing for group integration.  That is, we communicate via language because we are a natural product of the group–the collective–which has given birth to us, because we are it, as far as we can know, and not as a means to manifest our own individual personalities, wills, whims, and ideas upon our environment to our own ends and for our own comfort and pleasure and perpetuation.

Which is what language really is and why we really possess it.  In other words, we have language because we, individually, have the inherent ABILITY to have it; making us, individually, the only true reason for it.  The ability to conceptualize is the ability to communicate through language; and this is the ability to reason.  For reason is simply the rational consistency of the conceptual paradigm, applied through language.  Language qua conceptualization qua reason is only relevant if there is an absolute reference for it.  Since it is  the individual who has fundamental, existential possession of it, it is a direct function of the individual, which means the individual must be the absolute source and absolute objective of it.

But once you remove the individual and make him an absolute function of the environment qua his emotions, as this movie does, then you have no need for language, and thus concepts, because language is merely a means by which to compel people into the collective, period.  Language is not of the Self, it is of the group; but this movie is about ONE girl.  NOT the group.  And in this context, the individual “you” is merely a bundle of emotions, without rhyme nor reason; directed to and fro by the passions elicited by determined and inevitable environmental stimulus, trying to make sense of what is fundamentally senseless, because the true metaphysic of the Self has not been realized; and this is the message of the movie.  Without the group to tell you what everything is supposed to mean–to define your reality for you and to provide the interpretive lens for all the seemingly incoherent and capricious environmental influence…to give you a hook from which to hang your very existence–NOTHING fundamentally can prevail except confusion, which in the movie is rendered as “Sadness”.  And “Joy”, no matter how hard she tries, cannot overcome to emotion of “Sadness” because the truth of existence according to the group metaphysic is that ALL reality is doomed to crumble into an endless abyss of nihilistic madness and despair if one concedes that he or she has some manner of individual presence.   Individually, you are the rope being stretched between two competing, irreconcilable, forces:  the lie of Self and the Truth of the Group qua the Environment.  And though all emotions seem to have an equal say in things at first, as the child grows up left to herself, the power of Sadness becomes more and more dominant, subordinating ALL other emotions to its inevitable consequence:  destruction.  Destructive behaviors, destructive ideas, destructive conclusions.

It is the group’s responsibility to turn sadness, happy; to make the confusing, rational; and the meaningless, purposeful.  And when we are left alone (and the little girl in the movie is nothing if not the metaphor for the lonesome INDIVIDUAL, as we spend 90% or more of the movie inside her head), with no group available with which to integrate ourselves, then the environment will kill you.  The only way to control it is to acknowledge its power, and your complete inability to organize it on your own.  You need OTHERS.  And that’s the moral of the story, as we see when the little girl finally understands that she must either subordinate herself to her family–her parents–or die.

The perceptive among you will notice that the little girl never has any just cause for her sadness, or her anger, or her disgust, nor even her joy; though “Joy” is, I submit, a metaphor for the collective, because Joy always invokes images of belonging; whereas Fear, Disgust, Sadness, and Anger are the emotional displays of rank selfishness.  No, the little girl feels things without the corresponding conceptual rhyme or reason.  And what this means is that she can never claim to have been wronged by any circumstance, which means she can never claim to have a legitimate grievance against anyone else, and thus she can never claim that she has a right to justice.

This too is hallmark–an uber foundation–of collectivist philosophy.

Interestingly enough, the family “unit” is seen as the salvation for emotional-qua-environmental induced misery, and yet, through a few scenes within the heads of mom and dad, we see the following emotions in the “leadership” roles (in each character, there is the “boss”; the dominant emotion to which the other emotions defer). Mom’s dominant emotion is “Sadness”, and dad’s is “Anger”.  Which, yeah…interesting.  In the little girl’s head it is “Joy” who is the brains of the outfit, but Joy quickly gives way to Sadness (reluctantly…showing the stubbornness of the young in clinging to their individuality) when life’s circumstances take a turn for the worse and she is forced to move away from her friends to follow dad’s job to San Fransisco.  This speaks to the prevailing negative power of the environment, I believe, which is a subliminal way of criticizing America’s “free” society.  You see, no matter how hard we try, even as adults the negative emotions dominate, because there is just too much fucking freedom.  Even in a society ruled by the largest central authority the world has ever seen, individuals are just too burdened with their own choices and their own interests to ever truly be happy.

I’m sure more could be said about this, but alas, I’m getting long in this essay, even for me.

At any rate, this, I submit, is why the movie doesn’t spend any time at all dealing with concept formation nor language development in its treatment of one’s emotional evolution.  They remove the individual from himself (or herself, as it were) by making him a categorical function of his environment; his emotions being the primary and only relevant expression within the human organism of environmental stimulus absent the influence of the collective (and since the collective isn’t directly dealt with, per se, in the movie, there isn’t any reason to deal with concepts, which again are only useful in emphasizing group dominance).

I find it telling that there is almost no back story to this movie.  We know nothing about why the family moves to San Fransisco, or what dad does for a living,  or where mom went to school, or even if she did, or what either mom or dad like to do for fun.  They exist as merely props for the girl…a representation of the monolithic power of the environment to control feelings and thus behavior and thus existence; and then, near the movie’s conclusion, the conveniently provide the metaphor for collective integration.  For the life of me I cannot even remember their names, of if they were even given names at all.

The family  has no friends, no extended relatives, no work acquaintances to speak of.  Basically, mom and dad aren’t fully human, let alone ever portrayed as sentient, volitional individuals; and this is made even more poignant when we see that they, exactly like the little girl, are ruled entirely by the anthropomorphized emotions in their heads.  Mom and dad are the intellectual and metaphysical equivalents of the child.  Their only “advantage” it seems is that they have at least some semblance of group-awareness.  They understand that the key to happiness is to let the environment–your collective–define it for you.  Give in and let go.  Mom and dad, and later the State, will make it all better once you stop thinking that you somehow have a say in anything at all; as though you are anything more than a pre-programmed cog in the inexorable mechanism of universal causality.

*

The moral of the story, with respect to how to interpret emotions, is that all experiences are a composite of emotions.  That is, a given experience, to be truly matured and meaningful, is neither sad nor happy, nor angry, nor disgusting, nor fearful, but is a combination of some or all of these emotions.  Those of you now familiar with the implicit nihilism and futility of assuming an individual existence within a prevailing collectivist metaphysic will quickly make the connection to this conclusion and the fundamental assumptions which underlie this film.

Why do you think this is?  Why do you think we are to assume that no emotion has any singular, inherent meaning?  Why can no emotion stand alone as this or that, or as claiming absolute sovereignty over any given situation?  Why cannot losing your best friend be simply sad, and not both sad and happy?  Why are the emotions always mixed?

Is it because you are happy about part of the experience and sad about another part of it?  But “environment” cannot be compartmentalized, you see.  Environment is the singularity…it is THE governing force behind your emotions.  There is no partitioning of what is absolute, by definition.  You are a function, in totality, of your environment, and therefore there is no such thing as you deciding which experience means what to you; or which part of which experience means this or that.  Environment, and thus experience, is entirely monolithic, homogenous.  And this means what?

Right.  You’ve got it, I dare say.

The moral of the story is that of emotional equivalency.  The reason why emotions as they relate to environmental stimulus are always mixed is because, being a direct effect of the singular environment, they can have no distinctive value.  Sadness is no better nor worse,nor more rational or irrational, than joy.  Anger is no different than fear, practically speaking.  “Sadness”, “joy”, “fear”, “anger”, “disgust” are concepts, and concepts are the sole purview and prerogative of the collective.  They can have no meaning with respect to you individually. As such, whatever you perceive, as an individual, as a function of the environment, is the exact same thing as what you perceive next, or what you perceived before.  Feelings are simply not distinct in any practical nor relevant way.  You cannot claim to be sad, nor happy, nor angry at any given moment because there is no actual difference.  Emotions are the environment, and the environment is unequivocal, and YOU are the environment.  Meaning is conceptual, and conceptual reality is group reality.  Period.  Full stop.

In short, there is no need for you to be afraid, or disgusted, or angry, or sad; and there is no need for you to worry about being happy as though you, individually, are in any way responsible for that.  You only need to obey.

And through your obedience you will find all the practical emotional meaning and fulfillment you need.

There is No Reason For a Flat Earth Conspiracy Because There is No Reason to Lie: Why what is observed is irrelevant; it is what is philosophically assumed about what is observed that matters

Physics and Metaphysics, , , , , ,

This essay is primarily a response to commenter Wednesday’s World, who contributed a thought in the comments section of my previous post.  It can be seen here. I recommend checking it out prior to reading my relatively short response (well, too long for a reply in the comments section, but much shorter than my usual voluble yarns).

*

Hi Wednesday’s World. Thanks for visiting my page and for commenting.

As one who avers that all movement between bodies is relative, how such movement is observed by the senses may not in fact describe the existent properties of said bodies which are moving.  In other words, how we observe things to move relative to us may not necessarily be a true representation of how those things actually exist in space; or rather, in a vacuum of themselves.

Take the duality of light paradox. Science says that light is both a particle and a wave. But this is only because human beings observe it as one or the other depending on the environmental context.  But I do not accept the premise that light can be in essence both what it is and what it is NOT simultaneously simply because we observe it that way.  And the reason I do not accept the premise is because it violates THE fundamental law of rational non-contradiction.  And to violate reason by asserting and inserting a full-on contradiction destroys the very foundation of existence; which precludes man from ever apprehending truth.  And this is a recipe for disaster, and is the clarion call for every despot and bloodthirsty tyrant in world history, bar none.

The contradiction implicit within the wave/particle duality of light paradox is the idea that something is both what it is and what it is not–that is, the idea that an object is “both” and “and”, where something, for example, is both A and B while simultaneously being distinctly A and not B, and vice versa.  But what is proclaimed to be “both” and “and” is in reality nothing more than “is” and “is not”.  This is, by definition, impossible.  So I deny the paradox regardless of how we observe light because the philosophical conclusion which such a paradox renders is entirely untenable, and thus must ultimately destroy the very reality of existence.  If there can be “truth” within the idea that something can be both an “is”  and an “is not”, then truth is itself, fundamentally, a contradiction, and therefore cannot possibly be true.  Because to say that something both “is” and “is not” demands the corollary that that same thing is both simultaneously “true” and “false”.  In which case Truth (and Lie) cease to have any meaning whatsoever.  If truth is not necessarily true, then it is impossible for man to know anything at all.  Which renders all discussions moot, and “reality” and “morality” become nothing more than a matter of who has the biggest gun (or bomb, or sword, or stake, or dunking chair) and the willingness to use it.

You want conspiracy?  Try looking at the existential assumptions which drive the very meaning and relevancy and purpose of what is observed, and not simply at what thing is observed.  In fact, to ask people to spend so much time examining and questioning the physical nature of what is observed, as though ideas are a function of the sensory data and not of the individual ability to exist as a categorical and absolute SELF…well, that to me is the real conspiracy here with respect to the flat-earth issue.

Also, to your point about telescopes and horizons, and the heavenly revolutions of the sun and the moon, well…just because I observe from terra firma that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the horizon is flat or that a boat does not “dip” below a curvature on the horizon does not mean that I accept the Earth is flat.  This again is a function of my premise that what is observed does not necessarily represent the existent nature–the Truth–of the objects I am observing relative to me.

*

To understand the true nature of ourselves and other objects which exist, we must examine our philosophical premises and develop irreducible metaphysical and epistemological axioms which are completely consistent, non-redundant, and non-contextual. It is only via this that can we claim to possess Truth.

Truth is not a function of science, as I said in my last post.  And thus I find it of little practical use to try to prove empirical scientific data false, simply because at the end of the day, science–with respect to empirical evidence–is going to destroy all contrary arguments, because A. they have MUCH better equipment than you or I do, and are MUCH better at math than everyone else (because they have to be), and mathematics is the single greatest–and, ultimately, the only relevant–means by which all empirically observed data can be classified as actual in the empirical sense and thus evident in the empirical sense; and B. they have no reason to lie or to cover up anything they discover, such as a flat earth, because, again, truth is not a function of empirical data but a function of the philosophical premises by which any of that data has any relevancy or meaning to humanity–or, more specifically, to the existence and the essence of the individual human being. In other words, scientists, or rather, scientific empiricists (because not all scientists are necessarily scientific, mathematical, and empirical determinists) only have to convince people that THEIR existential interpretive premises are the correct ones (e.g. causal determinism, consciousness as illusion, the reality and deterministic force of Space and Time, the material transcendence and universal “governance” of physical laws, the transcendent, autonomous and self-contained existence (and thus causal power) of Abstraction, such as mathematical proofs). After that, they can be perfectly truthful about what they observe as the physical properties of the universe and the objects in it. Because once you control the interpretive philosophical premises–once you are in charge of the axioms…the irreducibles–everything becomes a direct function of those premises. There is nothing then to be gained by lying about empirical data because all such data MUST inevitably and inexorably conform to the premises.

We need to understand that reality is a function of what we believe…or rather, our ability to conceptualize, and from this to formulate ideas, not our ability to observe.  Because of this, there is simply no reason to lie about the shape of the earth. There is no reason for a conspiracy. Control is a function of who gets to define reality according to the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions we hold about the nature of existence; and by this I mean the nature of HUMAN existence, and by this I mean the nature of individual human existence, because, really, that is the only existence which matters; the only essence which matters.  What reality looks like is besides the point. There is no reason to lie about the empirical data–the observed data–because what is observed must simply be the necessary and inviolable result of the premises, period.  The premise will and MUST define what is observed, regardless of HOW it is observed. Because what is observed is a direct function of the premises we hold about the nature of reality…of existence, of essence.  And this is because reality is not a function of empirical observation, but of philosophy; of ideas.  Philosophy…the ability of man to know himself and to know what he is not is the root of Truth.  Philosophy defines material reality as a function of man’s metaphysical essence.  And all that man observes MUST comport and WILL comport to the irreducible philosophical axioms, be they rational or irrational.  It is our job to make sure they are rational.  Then, when we do, we can know that what is observed can be described rationally, and reality can be established because Truth will have been bestowed upon what is seen.  But the form of what is seen is not the issue.  In itself, the form of the Earth is irrelevant.  Thus, there is no reason to lie about it.  There is no reason for a conspiracy.

*

You observe something. You reproduce what is observed in various contexts in order to establish that its pattern is one of uniform consistency. Then you create an arcane (but practical and imminently utilitarian) mathematical proof for the observed event, substituting particulars (e.g. the apple, the tree, the ground) with abstract universals (e.g. x, y, and z). And then, suddenly, seemingly without regard to the destruction, war, torture, abuse, psychological obliteration, and bloodshed you are initiating you proclaim the mathematical proof not a conceptual abstraction devised by man to organize his environment to his own promotion and pleasure but as the “language” of an actual autonomous cosmic governing AGENT, or FORCE, which determines by its power every action (with respect to the movement in question…that is, the movement to which the mathematical proof relates) of every object in the universe.

Now, to be fair, this is most likely due to the sheer and staggeringly immense power of mathematics to enable man to manipulate his environment to his own will and whim and to codify it conceptually thus making it universally accessible to all men, which grants the illusion I think of  some kind of cosmic, causal universality.  And this rather than a form of intentional malevolence whereupon a certain group of impish nerds in lab coats and comb-overs wish to subject and subdue and subordinate the vast “unenlightened” masses to their whims and pleasures.  Alas, we have the institutional Church of ALL religions for that.  Satan is always in the place everyone has been convinced he is not, I suppose.

*

Finally–and this is not nearly as important as the aforementioned points–I still insist that the most glaring “scientific” flaw in the flat-earth theory is the fact that gravity is uniform upon the world. That is, no matter where you stand, you weigh the same. This could not be possible if the earth were flat. A disc shaped earth, or a one dimensional earth, would demand an entirely different gravitational rubric. This would affect everything in the universe–from the revolution of the sun and the moon to the position of the stars in the sky to how you looked to what you could do to how you identified yourself as “human”, if there could even be such a thing (there couldn’t, I guess is my point).  In other words, if it weren’t for a round earth you could not take issue with the scientific data, or claim your own as a counter-proof, in order to deny a round earth because the data wouldn’t exist in its present condition in the first place.

Flat Earth Conspiracy: I understand the skepticism, but don’t let this distract you from the real fight

Physics and Metaphysics, , , , ,

Yeah…this flat earth conspiracy thing just isn’t real, man. There are real conspiracies, but this isn’t one of them.

There are several obvious problems with this theory; the biggest problem, however, is: the uniformity of gravity precludes such an earth; gravity would be categorically and self-evidently different if the earth was flat, or disc shaped.

The real question I suspect leads one to consider this flat-earth idea has in actuality nothing to do with a geocentric or heliocentric astronomical construct, but how we actually define what is “center” in a universe which cannot have any location or any age in and of itself because time and space were created AFTER the Big Bang.

You see, if we want to make the earth the center of the universe, we must first realize that “space”, or “location” is not the true plumb line. The real plumb line is not a scientific one, but has to do with how we define man’s metaphysic. If man is absolutely HIMSELF (which he is), then everything revolves around the individual, since the context of YOU, or SELF, is the only existential constant. In fact is the only non-abstract, non-theoretical constant, period.

Thus, to make the planet of Man the center of the universe is a more rational way to view existence philosophically, which, again is where the real fight for freedom happens.

We must all remember that science has nothing to do with Truth; it is an organizational abstraction. Period. Full stop. There can be no scientific “cause” of anything, because before you can have a cause, you must have some THING to initiate causality. This means that the initial cause will itself not be subject to the laws of physics; which makes them fundamentally irrelevant with respect to explaining the nature of existence–and our inability to defend the nature of existence from scientific determinism, the prevailing philosophy today, is precisely why the hordes of authoritarian collectivism march to and fro upon the world almost entirely unopposed .

Anyway…

Since human existence predates science and the concepts it employs, being a function OF man, it cannot have created him.

Again, this is the real fight. This flat earth stuff is just a distraction. Don’t let it.

The Confederate Flag Fiasco, and Why it’s a Win For Collectivist Authoritarianism

Epistemology, , , , ,

Ignoring the usual specious messages concerning the Confederate battle flag, let’s look at this another way.

Since ostensibly our government is a representative one, we can make the claim that public property–the government land subsidized by the citizens–is property belonging to the PUBLIC (setting aside for the moment the fact that collectively-owned property is an impossibility, which makes the whole argument about what should or shouldn’t be displayed upon it thus irrelevant). This being the case, any private citizen should be able to petition the government to display his or her works upon public property; that is, if we want to consistently apply the idea of public property–property owned by the people, which is (theoretically) the very definition.

There can be no rational and therefore no moral reason to deny any such petition other than if the display is in service to an expressed intent to violate the life or property of another citizen. (For example, if someone wanted to display a swastika on public grounds to openly express his or her desire to kill all the Jews, this would make such a display immoral, and thus it should be denied.)

Since symbols are subjective, one cannot deny such a petition on the grounds that the symbol ITSELF is offensive, or means this or that…because again this is an attempt to invoke the logically impossible argument that symbols have objective meaning. To claim a symbol means something to EVERYONE is clearly overstepping one’s own epistemology, since it is impossible for you to know what something MEANS to someone else unless they concede YOUR definition of it.

The only other alternative is to ban, in a rank display of contradiction, ALL symbols from the private citizen upon public grounds. But this of course would need to include ALL monuments and flags pertaining to the State itself, since (again, ostensibly) the government represents an extension of the people; thus, there can be no such thing as purely a “governmental” or “national” symbol.

You see, what those calling for the arbitrary removal of the confederate flag from all state grounds are doing is attempting to reconcile two mutual exclusivities. The symbols of the Central Authority (the government) AS BEING and AS REPRESENTING the symbols of the private citizen, thus making government or national symbols acceptable but private symbols illegal. Insofar as it is impossible to make that which is COLLECTIVE a symbol of and for he or she who is INDIVIDUAL, it is impossible to declare the moral and legal display of national symbols while declaring the display of private symbols upon government grounds immoral and illegal. As soon as you appeal to the right of the nation to display ITS symbols on public grounds, you MUST appeal to the right of the individual to do the same, since the first CANNOT exist without the second. That is, if you mean to be rational. Which is only an assumption, of course. Looking at the nature of the predominant philosophies in circulation today, one might just as easily assume the collective eschewing of rationality.

Anyway…

Nevertheless this is the argument being made, and that we are being asked to swallow; and those rationally minded among us simply cannot concede that it is ever a good idea to exchange reason for madness simply because not doing so is “offensive”–whatever that means.

The idea that the government has the right to display its symbols and monuments upon public property but the individual does not, due to the risk of “offense” , is merely conceding the right of the State to subordinate the citizen to itself. Which is PRECISELY what this flag nonsense is all about. Nothing more nor less. This is a fight not for the rights of the oppressed minority, but an attempt to spread oppression to ALL people because it is now commonly accepted–either consciously or tacitly–that the only moral individual is one who is being sacrificed to the Group; and ALL Groups derive their just meaning and purpose from the State .

In other words, the only good individual is a dead individual.