All posts by Argo

Is Chance/Probability Real? Not a Chance!: Chance does not exist; there is no power of probability

Uncategorized, , ,

Chance, examined rationally, is a non-existent agency; a concept, not an actuality in nature, and therefore does not describe how the material reality which is man’s universe actually manifest as “events” or “outcomes”. It is a figment–a concept of man’s mind; a way he organizes his surroundings in order to subdue them in service to his own affirmation, promotion, propagation, and comfort (for individual man is the only rational Standard of Truth,and thus himself is that which must be affirmed by his own concepts).  So it is useful, perhaps on an emotional level, in abstractly organizing our lives with respect to choices made on behalf of certain desired outcomes, but it cannot be rationally credited with having any real power–that is, causal power–over any event or series of events.

Now, I realize that  many of us will think this obvious and simple logic.  But when we consider how often our realities are expressed in, and our choices and beliefs guided by, ratios, the “cause and effect” paradigm, actuarial tables, various mathematical renderings of probabilities, gambits and gambles, we can see just how an innocent concept such as “chance”, meant to perhaps describe, not govern, is assumed and defined almost subconsciously as having some kind of control; of BEING some kind of existent force of nature; that chance is somehow a legitimate means of knowing or having some kind of real control over the outcome of an event, process, or idea.

The ironically titled Law of Probability is often employed as a means of ensuring success in a wide range of endeavors (which is also ironical), from business, to politics, to sports, economics, and financial investments. And this is not necessarily an illegitimate use of the “chance” concept; but it does, due in large part to its complicated mathematical formulation, conflate the conceptual, purely abstract form of chance—which is its only true and rational form—and the “natural”, “actual”, “causal” form–which is a false and entirely irrational form.  Still, I want to emphasize that I am not denying the emotional efficacy of the Law of Probability (though it is not literally efficacious to specific outcomes, because it doesn’t really exist…but rather MAN is efficacious to the promotion of himself, and he uses his conceptual Laws to accomplish this). And I’m not even suggesting that the law is intended to provide a specific outcome…it does not.  But it is very often employed with the assumption that its use will raise the probability that the employer of the law will succeed more than he will fail. Which of course makes the Law of Probability subject to itself (for what is the probability that the Law of Probability will result in an increase in success with respect to a given objective?). And this of course is a contradiction in terms which results in an endless circular relationship, going nowhere and thus resulting in no useful or knowable thing. Which begs the question: How can we rationally expect any actual efficacy of the Law of Probability?

At any rate, in the interest of stripping “chance” of any right to be called casual, and thus a legitimate means of defending any belief or position, be it religion or atheism or science or philosophy or politics or or morality, or personal ambition, or anything, I have written this essay.

*

First, it is important to understand that the notion of chance can only be developed by observing what has already happened. That is, we cannot come up with ratios or probabilities or any quantifiable units of “chance” or “probability” without having engaged in some study of  how objects interact prior to the notion of the “chances” of those interactions occurring or not occurring at some future time, or in what particular manner. And thus, I must admit I find it ironic that the notion of chance is developed by observing events in real time, whereby the events–ALL needing to have already happened prior to the “Law of Probability” being created and employed–have in reality absolutely nothing to do with chance at all. Chance then (and its formal development into a mathematical formula) is entirely irrespective of itself. Yes, I find this irony infinitely amusing. In other words, you can only develop the Law of Probability from what you absolutely know is true, empirically so–from that which renders chance itself utterly irrelevant. The Law of Probability itself therefore has zero to do with probability. And somehow, this seems fatally disconnected, logically speaking. Imagine a law of gravity which has nothing to do with gravity. Or a law of thermodynamics which doesn’t recognize the concept of temperature. Or Einstein’s famous equation, E=MC2, which doesn’t acknowledge energy, or mass, or the speed of light. Puzzling, to say the least. What HAS occurred is mutually exclusive of what MIGHT occur. But that doesn’t stop people from lauding and frantically employing probability as a means of ensuring the advantage. Because once you inject the magic of the great “Sovereign”, Mathematics, somehow that which is purely conceptual, ethereal, and illusory becomes real and empirically causal. By the power of that great scientific deity, the Equation, pure conceptual abstractions are popped into existence from literally nothing at all.

And they call people who believe in God mystics.

*

If an event occurs, then it, in a manner of speaking, has a 100% chance of occurring. Though, this is really an impossible contradiction in terms—obviously 100% “chance” equals the actual manifestation of the event in reality, at which point chance is moot. This of course renders chance as it pertains to the event entirely irrelevant. Similarly, if an event does not occur, then it, in a manner of speaking, has 0% chance of occurring. But this too is a contradiction in terms.  An event which does not occur does not actually exist—that is, an event which does NOT occur–that is, is NOT–is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as an absence of a thing.  And thus the event is not an event; it is nothing…and so yes, NOTHING, by definition, has ZERO chance of occurring. There is no chance that something which does not exist will ever exist.  For existence and non-existence—a thing and the absence of a thing—are mutually exclusive; categorically and infinitely incompatible. Which make chance in this case—the 0% chance of an event occurring—not simply irrelevant, but the very concept of chance itself is again moot—is mathematically zero—is absent—is a purely placeholder–when we attempt to apply it to things that are observed to NOT be (again, a contradiction in terms I know—you cannot observe that which is absent—but you understand what I mean). Chance is BLANK.

And so, if an event occurs, then chance is beside the point. And if the event does not occur then chance is similarly rendered beside the point. The very concept then of the Law of Probability has irrelevance and impotence as its singularity, for as soon as an event is observed to be, or it becomes apparent that the event will not be–that is, is NOT–the Law ceases to have any relevancy.  Which means that it cannot be said to have ever had any in the first place.  The event and the Law of Probability regarding its occurrence are utterly mutually exclusive things. The Law has no actual power; and I might argue that it cannot really be rationally shown, and certainly not proven, to even have any theoretical power, because chance and probability and the conceptual constructs which represent them, do not internally acknowledge the existence of chance and probability in the first place.

My point is that chance and real events are mutually exclusive. Events either are—100%–or they are not—0%. And this, again, is utterly exclusive of chance, which can only “rationally” be expressed as a percentage of 1-99. That is, chance is only ostensibly “rational” as a percentage of event probability between 1 and 99%. But events, once they manifest as happening or as NOT happening (the absence of happening, or zero mathematical existence), either ARE or are NOT. Period. Events do not partially occur or partially NOT occur. A 50% chance of happening does not magically become a 100% chance of happening once the event is seen to occur. And a 50% chance of not happening does not magically become a 100% chance of not happening once the event is NOT seen to occur. Once an event does or does not occur, chance becomes entirely irrelevant. It becomes functionally nothing. Chance and events have nothing really to do with one another, and so all laws of probability are fundamentally flawed, I would argue. Chance has no causal, actual, nor, I submit, even theoretical power. It is an abstraction without a home.  Perhaps not entirely useless, but entirely irrelevant, as it can never actually be shown to possess any efficacy, because its development has nothing whatsoever to do with with what it pretends to “effect”, so to speak.

Another example which may or may not prove helpful.  Suppose a gunsmith designs a rifle which only works 90% of the time.  Would we say that the rifle “works”…that is, as its general description?  As its foundational essence?  A working rifle?  No, we would not.  It is a broken rifle. (For it is a contradiction in terms to declare that a rifle is designed not to work, the gunsmith can qualify it as “working”. If you design something not to work, it’s still not working, even if you intended it to function that way.  Further, if it was intentionally designed NOT to do what a rifle is legitimately supposed to do–shoot–then one could rightly call the designer, and thus the design, fundamentally flawed at the level of the very roots of reason.) The fact that it shoots properly 90% of the time does not change the fact that its essence is one of rank dysfunction.  For the 10% of the time it does not work, in those instances, it 100% does not work, and thus, negates the idea that it can be labeled, ever, a working rifle…for 90% does not constitute a whole; that is 90% working is NOT working, by definition; and because the 100% dysfunction of the gun when not working must be applied to its essential description.  “A working gun” is an absolute concept; it cannot be parsed.  If when it does not work it does not work at ALL, then it is not a working gun, no matter that 90% of the time it does work.  Because the 100% not working (in the instances it fails) MUST be considered when describing the general nature of the gun.  That is, again, it’s a gun which does not actually work.  It does not actually do what the person in this example wants it to do, which is work, period.  The outcomes of its usage consistently fail, even if only 10%.  It consistently fails–and thus failure is a part of its endemic nature–because, again, when it fails, it utterly (that is, 100%) fails.  What I am getting at is the inability of one to call “working” a rifle which is designed only to work 90% of the time.  “Working” and “not working” are mutually exclusive concepts, and so when describing the overall nature of the rifle we must consider this fact, plus the fact that people who shoot rifles want the ones they buy to WORK.  The very idea of a rifle purposely designed to NOT work is irrational on its face.  But at any rate, one cannot consider a rifle  “working” when 10% of the time it does not work; and further I’m attempting to highlight the irrationality of one seeking out and consistently employing such a gun when the goal is efficacious outcomes commensurate with a working rifle.

The Law of Probability is like a rifle that is designed to only work part of the time.  That is, to NOT actually work–that is, not a “working” theory–because by its appeal to chance and probability, as opposed to certainty and inevitability, it is NOT going to be effective in gauging the outcome of an event by design, perhaps as much or even more so than it WILL be effective.  It is a formula that is specifically designed to NOT do what the user actually wants it to do (guide them to the outcomes and objectives they desire) perhaps up to 99% of the time.  It is not a LAW, its a Law of “Chance”, which means the very nature of it as a “law” is on its face an utter contradiction.  And so I ask, is there really any means by which we can argue that chance and probability are ever the most rational way to organize our lives, let alone are actual and causal? You can’t call a theory a working theory if a certain percentage of the time it consistently (100%) does not work as an endemic function of its purposed nature.

Is it any wonder why so many people are made destitute by gambling addiction and why so many people prefer to cheat in order to beat whatever “system” with which they happen to be engaged?

Now, as far as application of the ideas in this essay go, it is important for both atheists and Christians, for instance, scientists and philosophers, mystics and empiricists and rationalists, to remember and understand that material reality IS. Those things that ARE simply ARE. There are no laws which govern their interaction; for how they interact is always rooted in the infinity of their existential IS, which is without beginning or end. And in this case, actual things, which are the roots of these interactions–these events which we hold up to various determinative laws, are not a function of any actual outside theoretical construct, like probability. Therefore, any idea, philosophy, principle, doctrine, creed, model, mechanism, or statement of faith, etc. should provide NO appeal to such a notion. Chance should have no place in legitimate science, philosophy, politics, economics, religion, or even one’s own ambitions, only reason. The infusion of chance into causal explanations of the universe or anything in it, including and especially man and his actions, automatically disqualifies these explanations from any sort of rational consistency…or consistency at all, for that matter.

Truth is NOT a Function of Your Presumption, No Matter How Noble: For an atheist to be consistent, he must be a theist, and vice versa

Calvinism/Philosophy, Epistemology, Metaphysics

The more I study and the more I think the more I conclude that there are only ostensible differences in the most common ideas, be them political, religious, or even broadly philosophical. It’s all the same authoritarian determinism with different vocabulary. Or the same vocabulary (Catholic vs. Protestant, for example; Democrat vs. Republican, for another example) redefined.

I have been listening to a lot of Christopher Hitchens on YouTube lately, because I am always on the look out for ways in which atheism (or antitheism, as he prefers to think of his ideas) differs fundamentally from other authoritarian determinist collectivist ideologies, like, for example, religious despotism (Hi there, neo-Calvinist movement!). And Hitchens is this month’s flavor….Noam Chomsky, then followed by Stephan Moleneux and a slew of like-minded (to Stephan, not Noam) anarcho-capitalists was last month’s variety. On a side note, I’m sure this is not an original thought, but shouldn’t we refer to Noam as Gnome?  I mean, he doesn’t look entirely unlike one of those adorable pointy-headed little elves which garnish so many suburban yards; and he’s about as useful when you examine what he actually says.

Anyway.

Here’s my conclusion: There is no fundamental difference. All the presumptions which form the core of these ideologies–atheist, theist, agnostic, what have you–utterly concede the idea that man is a function of some outside force; which of course destroys man’s identity and obligates him to the “philosopher kings”–the purveyors of the Primary Consciousness in question (God, laws of nature, “human existence”–that is, the existential irreducible primary a-la Ayn Rand, the Party, the Race, the Tribe, the Gender, the Nation, the Kingdom, the Mathematics, the Moral Law, the “Right Way” of Doing Things, etc.).

It is equal parts frustrating and highly telling. Truly the philosopher kings have no clothes. No one seems able nor even willing to answer the question “What is man?”. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the very first thing for which your mind–which must always enter into the arena of ideas with a generous portion of skepticism and a side of knee-jerk denial–should be on the lookout.  If no definition of man is forthcoming, then the idea(s) should be summarily rejected as an illegitimate answer for the questions “What is TRUTH?” and “What should man do?”.  For unless man is rationally defined as a SELF which is completely autonomous and distinct, infinite in its ability to BE what it is, and to KNOW what it is and what it is not, and to appeal to itself as the only rational standard by which truth may be defined as true, and moral (good) actions may be defined as actually moral (good), and coupled with an explanation of just how this is materially possible (which can only be done by injecting God into the equation, atheists)…yes, unless this is forthcoming then you may safely assume that the ideas you are consuming are not fit for existential application.  That is, they are not TRUTH, and thus while they may serve some ancillary subjective purpose in some specific context, they are inadequate for describing and/or explaining reality on the whole.

So, no atheist that I have observed yet answers the question, “What is man?”.   It is just assumed that man IS. But IS is not fundamentally different from IS NOT unless it can be explained beyond its “axiom”–the axiom which says that that IS simply IS, and there is no consideration given to just how the  IS became an IS and how it therefore may be rationally juxtaposed to what it IS NOT.  For what is merely considered to BE can only be observed as distinct (that is, where its being is not utterly infinite) from other things if one can explain just how this distinction can be made.  That is, how what IS, and infinitely so, can co-exist with other things which it is NOT.   And no one–NO atheist which I have observed–does this beyond appeals to science (or ignorance…”We just don’t know”), just like the the “orthodox” religious big-mouths appeal to God’s creative powers whereby He makes something out of nothing (which is nonsense defined).  And of course it should be observed that these are ideas which can only be conceded AFTER one already exists, FROM that place of existence. In other words, the things that always and only are observed to follow  from man’s awareness of himSELF (like the “laws of nature”, for instance) are said to be the cause of that SELF…which is a madness to rival even the most insane sidewalk babbler.

*

The atheist or antitheist dismisses God out of hand as tyrannical nonsense simply because the men who have preached Him since even before the days of Christ have succumbed to the pervasive lie of gnosticism (codified by Plato, and further disseminated by St. Augustine under the guise of Christian enlightenment). They never bother to ask themselves whether or not the self-described proxies and herald’s of God and His moral mandates actually rightly apprehend His person and place and purpose, or rationally interpret the religious canonical texts. They simply concede that the ecclesiastical proselytes do. Or, better said, the atheist first assumes that God cannot exist, and then they use the obviously irrational doctrines, and the obviously untenable interpretations of scriptures of the religious “orthodoxy” to “prove” their point.

What I mean is that instead of simply pointing out the logical flaws in the doctrines and platitudes perpetuated by those who claim to know and preach God, the atheist assumes that these doctrines are the only way God can be acknowledged to exist and to act efficaciously. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it is a massively shallow and obtuse assumption, and undermines their entire argument. They approach religion with the same flawed assumption their mystic counterparts do: that religion rationally passes as a full-on philosophy. Which, as I elaborated upon in my last post, it does not. Religion is NOT a philosophy–at least not in the true holistic sense–because before one can believe in the doctrines of faith one must have conceded metaphysical and epistemological absolutes ALREADY in order to proclaim that it is THEY who are BELIEVING in something. Any atheist who is worth anything beyond his or her polemic-ism would understand this, and therefore not assume that God must necessarily be defined by religion, which, again, does not internally or intrinsically possess any metaphysical or epistemological axioms.

The atheist, to be taken any more seriously than the mystic, must understand that there is a massive difference between a disbelief in religion and a disbelief in God. But they don’t seem to make this distinction, nor give any evidence that they are even aware of it at all. Which leads me to conclude that prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens are in essence no different than the very people they pretend to criticize: People who love to argue for truth only from hindsight, where the “logic” extends no further than the initial assumption.  And of course the problem with this is that the presumption can thus be literally anything at all, which means, conveniently, that they can never lose an argument, much like the mystic who appeals to his or her divinely bestowed enlightenment, which cannot be learned but must be somehow magically dispensed. For the atheist, by presuming an infinite existential axiom with zero explanation as to just how such an axiom can be arrived at (and yet it still must be conceded), simply appeals to the same argument of “divine” enlightenment, except they remove God as the granter of such gnosis, and replace Him with a salad bar of empiricism, like science and nature and mathematics and statistics and ad-hominem and moralizing and “righteous” indignation, and even shoulder-shrugging ignorance (well, we know the Big Bang is the cause, but we CANNOT know (an appeal to man’s fundamental and thus infinite intellectual insufficiency) what caused the Big Bang), making those who posses an innate aptitude for such things the new divine proxies.  A rational metaphysical absolute (a comprehensive answer to the question “What is man?” via the tool of pure reason, not empiricism) is wholly disregarded. Which makes the quest for TRUTH pointless because TRUTH then becomes entirely relative. And thus the debate dissolves into merely a tit-for-tat parlance where the root point is simply “I’m right, because I believe I am right; and you’re wrong because YOU believe I’m wrong.”. A point of view which incidentally cannot have a fucking thing to do with TRUTH.

And the rest of us, whether praying or scoffing at those who do, haven’t moved one inch closer to true enlightenment OR salvation.

The Bible is Not a Philosophy; and Pastoral “Wisdom” and “Understanding” is the Very Definition of Subjective Opinion

Calvinism/Philosophy, Epistemology, Metaphysics

Before we examine another parcel of madness bathed in a wash of syrupy platitudes and cliches, and wrapped in a paper-thin shroud of compassionate spiritual counsel, I am compelled to point out the lack of bibliography, citations, or references of any sort in the primer which has been the subject of my latest series “Collectivist Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal”.  The booklet is, again, entitled, “Community: Your Pathway to Progress”, and it was published by North Point Ministries in 2008.

We are all just supposed to assume that they are speaking from some place of higher authority and that whatever they have scribbled down is somehow “God-breathed”; which is merely another nod to their presumption of representing God as proxy to the laity.  The laity…which is not in the position, either metaphysically or epistemologically, to really know the difference.  Oh, sure, they will poof-text the Bible in a lazy attempt to add credence and legitimacy to their ideas, but this is merely another stage prop in the facade.  Remember, the Bible is NOT a philosophy, no matter how many of us wish it were or function as though it was.  It does not spell out a clear, stark metaphysical construct for man; it does not lay out a fundamental epistemology rooted in this construct; it does not declare axiomatic ethics (beyond the Ten Commandments, which are unfortunately obliterated in a raging sea of equivocation once the Jews are seen to interact with tribes outside themselves, not to mention how the Commandments are handled, often circumspectly, in the New Testament); it does not posit a stark political strategy (and given that most of the Old Testament is within the context of a monarchy that God advised AGAINST, and the New Testament functions within the confines of Roman imperialism and Rabbinic hyper-authoritarianism I’d say this point is pretty well made for me…my further elaboration unnecessary); nor does it offer examples of a derivative aesthetic based upon the rest of the philosophic axioms…because they aren’t there.  My point is that in order to interpret the Bible rationally one must have a rational philosophy already established.  For I submit that the single greatest weakness of the Bible (and this is not really the Bible’s fault, but rather the fault of those who pretend to be its authorities and experts) is that because of its decided lack of metaphysical and epistemological absolutes it is prone to massive subjectivity with respect to the doctrines derived from it.  Meaning that anyone can get it to say just about whatever the fuck they want it to say.  And again, this is precisely because it is NOT a philosophy.  Thus, in order to understand the Bible–if we concede that the Bible is our primary source for what we think, spiritually–we must possess a rational mind, with rational consistency, and have developed our existential assumptions (philosophy) via reason before the Bible can possibly make any sense or have any efficacious relevancy.

My opinion with respect to God’s view of man from all of the aforementioned is this: The fact a reasonable philosophy is a prerequisite for a rational rendering of the Biblical messages is, to me, an illustration of God’s faith in man’s ability to observe his own reality and concede the existence of his own distinct, autonomous, volitional SELF, and to live by it, before He even deigns to dialogue.  Indeed, the efficacious and rational existence of man’s SELF is so obvious that God doesn’t even bother with presenting some kind of singular philosophy; he just jumps right in to LIFE, and counsel for the most valuable and profitable and satisfying way of living it.  Alas, God has a much higher opinion of man’s intellect and ability to apprehend reality rationally than does man.  But try arguing this with the evil, Marxist shills in charge of running the institutional church these days.  You’ll find yourself run out of town on a rail; next stop, Heretic Land. My point is that you must remember that when you read things like “Community: Your Pathway to Progress”–with “community” being a euphemism for Marxist-style totalitarian collectivism–understand that it is not rooted in any particular, salient, deep, or rational understanding of…well, anything at all.  It is a bunch of ill-educated, intellectually stunted, under-productive man-hens clucking around the coop in the hopes that at some point truth in Shakespearean prose might burst forth from their lips.  Why?  Simply because they’ve assumed God’s omnipotence and authority by fiat.  In other words, by just deciding that they are somehow “called”.

So my recommendation?  Take this stuff–advice books from the institutional church–for what it is:  very little.  And then proceed to find the humor in it by its sheer audacity; then mock it, disprove it with reason, know that God does not consider madness to be wisdom, and go on with your life, living it for you, your pleasure, your comfort, your peace, because its God’s gift to you, because he’s a Father, and normal, sane fathers actually want their children free and happy…not enslaved, confused, tortured, and murdered for the sake of some asshole who stands at a podium and says “obey me”, with absolutely no more depth to his “authority” than that simple directive.

Part TEN of: Collectivist (Marxist) Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal

Calvinism/Philosophy

In light of the preceding essays on this topic, let’s answer the following discussion questions taken from the Christian Marxist primer we are currently examining (p. 26, 27, Community:  Your pathway to progress; North Point Ministries, 2008).  We will answer them in full accordance with the principles of protestant “biblically sound” doctrine.

[NOTE: For a full appreciation of the answers I have given, I recommend you review the previous essays in this series.  I know its been a while since I’ve posted.]

Discussion Questions

1.  What do you want to be known for?

Devoting the entirety of my life and property to the church collective, as this is my God-ordained metaphysical and moral obligation.  And by this axiom, I grant full ownership of all my property–material, physical, intellectual, or otherwise–to the ecclesiastical authority which God has sovereignly appointed to act in His complete capacity, while admitting that I cannot distinguish between the two (God and the ecclesiastical authority), and because I can have no access to God directly, as I am infinitely depraved and perfectly consumed with sin and madness as a direct function of my very existence.

[Note:  One would think God-men wouldn’t be so grammatically indigent.  “For what would you like to be known?” is the proper rendering of the question.  But I suppose autocrats don’t really need to fuss about with fancy book-learning, what with the power to bind people in hell for eternity and all that.]

2.  What are the ways in which you practice image management?

By pathologically lying to everyone and God; because I am wickedness personified–a senseless brute, habitually claiming that up is down and black is white and, naturally, that evil is good.  And I further confess that any good in my life which I may claim, be it my family or education or occupation or profit or good health, was achieved entirely by manipulation and deception, theft and fraud, at the expense of God and my fellow man.  I cannot be trusted with anything of value, which is why I confer all of my possessions, to the very bowels of my savings, as well as the very lives of my wife and children, to this church collective, for which God, in His sovereign mercy, has determined me…er, even though He wants nothing to do with me, and never did, because I’m an infinite affront to Him.  Therefore it is logical to assume that it isn’t I that God cares about, but the God-men to whom He has (somehow) given a moral and epistemological dispensation (and to me as well, but only in the capacity of admitting my absolute moral failure and infinite need to be coerced and ruled).  And this is why they are entitled, without objection or criticism, to all of me and mine.

3. Read James 5:16.  Who in your life knows about your struggles?

No one of any relevance–which is to say, no one at all–until I met all of you fine people.

Why is it important to have people in our lives that know what is going on and can pray for us?

Ah…you almost got me with this trick question, you sneaky geniuses!  It isn’t about getting prayer, its about being compelled by overseers who are forced to use rank coercion and manipulation in order that I may act rightly before God…which is to say, before my Pastors.  Further, prayer and knowledge is fully irrelevant when the one known and being prayed for is totally depraved.  Force is the only instrument with any efficacy when it comes to a perfect monster, such as I.

4.  Read Romans 15:7.  What does it mean to accept someone?

To recognize that they cannot help but be terribly, terribly evil, because they are not really themselves, but are rather a mere mask of infinite depravity; and therefore they need this group–this body collective–as much as do I and the rest of the world.

I must realize that everyone I meet is a liar, a murderer, a God-hater, and a thief, not to be trusted, but committed to the power of the depravity-exempt pastorate, who shall justly rack and pillory them until they comply with the full measure of the pastorate’s divine authority.  And by this they shall have God’s salvation and peace, even though they shall be incapable of any frame of reference for such salvation and peace.  But that’s besides the point, and beyond our tiny, evil minds, and so it shall not be pondered.

5.  Read Hebrews 10:24-25.  How can we balance accepting each other where we are with encouraging each other to be all that God wants us to be?

Well…I think you are trying to trick me again, you wizards of God’s omniscience!  LOL  But you’ve taught me too well.  Clearly what God wants me to be is irrelevant, since I am totally depraved…which means absolutely; which means infinitely.  Which means that I cannot change, by definition, since I am not really myself, but an extension of infinite, determinative evil.  So “acceptance” refers to conceding my metaphysical definition, which is EVIL.  Period.  Full stop.

And “encouraging each other to be all God wants us to be” merely refers to encouraging the collective to accept the iron fist of violent coercion and virulent manipulation of the pastorate as it seeks to enhance its own power and wealth at the expense of those God has sold into slavery on its behalf.

However, if this is not a trick question (because…how would I know; my mind is the mind of raw selfish instinct) I would answer this way:  By encouraging and insisting upon more and more and more group time, so that our hands are never idle but are always pursuing the ends of the group, except when we are working at our occupations, of course, for the sole purpose of procuring more material resources for the collective to dispose of as the leadership sees fit.

6.  What would keep you from being transparent in this community group?

I cannot help but deceive, and rebel against the group because that is my nature.  Therefore, FORCE–threats, violence, fraud and manipulation–is the only thing which can effect any transparency on my behalf.  So…the dereliction of the leadership in its authoritarian duty is the only thing that would prevent transparency.  And, convenient for them, the culpability for this dereliction must rest squarely upon the laity they rule, because the leadership is above reproach–above failure and insufficiency, above any lack of intellect or talent, because there is no distinction to be made between it and God.

Conclusion:

Thank you dear leaders.  I hope I have been found worthy in your sight; I hope I have satisfied your divine egos, and have answered well. And if I have, it is thanks entirely to you.  And if I haven’t, it is thanks entirely to me.

Amen.

Part Nine of: Collectivist Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal

Calvinism/Philosophy, Epistemology, Metaphysics

“When you stop to think about it, all this secrecy [the assumption, again, is that you lie by nature to others, and that the “you” alone in the room at night–the pervasively debauched monster who comes out when no one else is around–is the “real” you] doesn’t make sense. If the people only like the image you’ve created, then they don’t really like the real you anyway!…So why not give up the charade [oh! the motherfucking presumption!] and step into the light?  Wouldn’t that be easier in the long run? What do your really have to lose? If you’re willing to take a chance, you just may experience being known and accepted for who you are for the first time.”

(Bold print mine)

(p. 25, Community:  Your pathway to progress; North Point Ministries, 2008)

Quick exercise in logic here.  Let’s examine the assumption and then see if the conclusions consistently follow.

The assumption:  Man is totally depraved; he is the source of evil; he is the perpetual liar; he can do no good thing in and of himself; he IS evil incarnate.

Conclusion 1:  Man must present to the world a false front.  Man must interact with society in disguise.  He must pretend that he is good in order that he may find success in his public pursuits…his vocation, his education, his politics, etc.

Conclusion 2:  Man is capable of knowing the difference between his false self and his true (infinitely evil) self.  Man is a liar and he knows it; man lies to other men and to God, by nature, and is therefore rightly condemned by God and His “true” Church (reformed Protestantism).  Man does not manifest his evil nature unawares.  Indeed, the nature of this booklet is to convince man that, by God’s grace, he no longer needs to engage in this “charade”…that he cannot help but engage in, because, again, his nature, all the way to the root of his metaphysic, is pure evil.

Conclusion 3:  By willfully joining the Marxist Totalitarian Church Collective man can be cured of his inculcated depravity, no longer living in the shame of a double life, able to step into the light, and let his perpetual inner monster become his perpetual outer monster…only this time by God’s blessing, because the monster, though not metaphysically nor practically changed in any way, has been “positionally” changed.  Meaning, the monster is still utterly and totally the monster, it’s just that thanks to Jesus (i.e. the Marxist Totalitarian Church Collective…for they make no functional difference between the group and the Savior) God doesn’t care anymore.

Now, after reading that, the question  I posed becomes obviously rhetorical:  Is the logic consistent?  Well, I have removed the bullshit from the burning paper bag where its fetidness is fully revealed, and we can see the train of thought derail at several sections of track…so, we can pick out example A by simply closing our eyes and pointing, and then go from there.  Because like horse droppings on a dirt road, the rational bankruptcy is lined up for inspection.  So let’s inspect it.

Conclusion one, again, states that man by nature presents to the world a false front; his successful and altruistic persona, by which he navigates his public life.  However, since the metaphysical presumption is that man is totally depraved–TOTALLY–by nature, man cannot possibly create a dichotomy of his person.  Since man is absolutely and therefore singularly depraved, any manifestation of his self is going to be a full on extension of this depravity.  Therefore, there isn’t any difference between his “true” self and his “false” self; his “failed” self and his “successful” self.  It’s not that there isn’t any difference functionally, it’s that there isn’t any difference period. There can be no dichotomy of any kind in a person who is defined as a categorical function of a conceptual absolute, like “depravity”; “evil”; “fallen-ness”.  If man is “depravity” absolutely, which is precisely what the metaphysics declare, then man cannot be parsed.  Everything man does is a full-on function of “depravity”, which has no object boundaries because objects, like man, are a function of it, and not the other way around. Man’s very existence is NOT separated from the absolute of “depravity”.  Whether he is sleeping or waking; whether he wears a tuxedo or a pair of overalls; whether he dines with a group at Ruth’s Chris or eats a Hot Pocket in the solitude of a one-bedroom Brooklyn apartment, there is no existential difference.  Man can no more observe a “false” self from a “true” self than he can proclaim that he and his depravity are different things.  According to the metaphysical presumptions present in this little Protestant primer, this is a laughable impossibility.  For man’s very observations are merely his depravity with a different label.

And this segues nicely into the contradictory assumption found in conclusion two, which states that man is capable of understanding the difference between his false, “good” self, and his true “evil” self.  Naturally this demands that man is capable of rightly defining the difference between good and evil.  Well, feel free to laugh heartily at this perfect example of reason shat upon.  For man is wholly depraved, and this, by Protestant doctrinal definition, includes–fuck, especially includes–his very mind.  This being the case, there is no possible way man possesses the epistemological faculties necessary for creating a false front of “goodness”.  Man is incapable–again, by doctrinal fucking definition–of understanding what “good” even is.  Man’s physical and spiritual and cognitive enlightenment to “righteousness”  is a direct manifestation of God’s grace upon him, so the hideous theology goes, and has absolutely nothing to do with him.  Therefore, it could be argued, if man is capable of putting on a false, but convincing, front of goodness, it’s because God allows it…for such a feat would require a proper understanding of what is “good” and that is always and only a function of God’s very own knowledge and enlightenment, acting on behalf of totally depraved man. Man himself is a blind, blithering, slobbering animal who couldn’t comprehend goodness any more than he could balance his whole body on his piggish nose.  Goodness utterly eludes him.  He is dead to it from the moment of his birth.

You see, since man’s epistemology (how he knows what he knows) is a direct function of his metaphysical state, which again is absolute evil, it is impossible for man to recognize good because it is impossible for him to recognize God because it is impossible for him to recognize TRUTH, by nature.  In other words, man’s understanding is as corrupt as his body is (because there is no actual difference).  Thus, he cannot help but think depraved thoughts and believe depraved things; to to be utterly confounded when attempting to ascertain the difference between good things and bad things.  Absolutely everything about man is evil (individually…but this all changes, somehow, when he arrives at the supreme enlightenment of Protestant church group integration).  There is no rational way to separate how man thinks from how he acts.  And this entire philosophy, presented so succinctly in the saccharine quote from the booklet above, is designed to teach us that morality, like metaphysics, is a function of the group, not the individual.  The idea that man should join his church’s “small group”  is proffered by North Point Ministries not because it is assumed that the individual can actually be taught anything…not at all; for this is impossible because man is morally bankrupt from his flesh to his thoughts; from cradle to grave.  But rather, what these collectivists assume is that man instinctively understands, somehow, that his reality–the true sum and substance of his life–is really a function of how OTHERS (humanity the collective) observe and define him, and that is why he is compelled to put on an act.  It isn’t because he is capable of understanding the difference between good and evil, but rather that he instinctively wants to belong to the group (again, humanity the collective).  And he will instinctively, not rationally, modify his behavior in order to achieve group integration.  The Marxist Protestant Church Collective’s job is to compel man (by force, preferably, but certain pesky political documents advocating a Republican form of government, rather than a totalitarian oligarchy ruled by the church such as existed in the fucking dark ages, prevent them from openly (key word) employing violence to grow the church)…yes, the Marxist Protestant Church Collective’s job is to press man into the “right” group…”God’s” group, led by the men He has called to “stand in his stead” (an actual doctrine preached in neo-Calvinist protestant circles).  And that, not the spreading of benign spirituality, Christian charity, or altruistic compassion, is the real purpose of this booklet.

Conclusion three’s contradictions begin with the idea that people can “willingly” choose to join the group.  Again, as I’ve just explained, man cannot willingly do anything.  For his will is utterly submitted to his moral turpitude.  The idea is to compel man to follow his instinctive need for collective integration into a specific direction.  This is most effectively and efficiently done  by “righteous” violence, such as was seen in medieval Europe when nations we awash in bloodshed and all manner of moral atrocity sanctioned by the Church and rooted in its detestable and contemptible Augustinian Platonism which demanded that man be entirely ruled by God’s “specially” appointed philosopher kings.  But since that isn’t (yet) possible in America, church-funded propaganda efforts and group-think practices will have to suffice.  However, on the bright side, for all you good little Protestant acolytes, its pretty fucking effective…and you don’t have the bloody mess to mop up or the rolling heads to chase around the floor.  Convenient.

And finally, you must have certainly noticed that nowhere in the paradigm does man actually change. Man is never NOT pervasively corrupt…no, no, no…man’s cosmic affront to His maker (yeah…and how does that not make God culpable for sin?  Punt, goes the answer) is perpetual and it is total.  Nothing can change man’s  pure and uncut metaphysic, which IS evil.  The group merely provides him covering from God’s wrath. How? Shrug. Who the fuck knows?  God only sees the group, and the group is good, even though its individual components are a stench to his nostrils.  The sum and substance of absolute evil, when practiced in a group, turns to righteousness…or so goes the Christian collectivist refrain.

Still, you wonder, how can this possibly be?

Aaaaaaaand….punt! Stay tuned for part 10.

Emotional Appeals, Though Powerful Propaganda Tools, Are No Legitimate Nor Reasonable Argument for the Right of Government to Commit Violence or Larceny Against the Individual in the Name of “Equality”: Conversations from Facebook

Calvinism/Philosophy, Epistemology, Metaphysics

A week or so ago on my Facebook page, I posted this short comment:

If I utterly affirm your right to marry and love whom you choose; to worship what you will, or nothing at all, and to adore what your soul desires, why do you not affirm my right to fully own my property and my labor, and dispose of it as I will, in service to my own interests, and exchange value with whom I wish? For all are of these are likewise inalienable rights of the individual.

A little later I received this affirmation from a respected contributor to the Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog:

For example, I might support the freedom of two lesbians who wish to get married, but I should not be forced to bake their wedding cake, nor punished under law if I refuse.

I wrote a short reply in which I agreed, stating that it is hypocritical for gay people to demand the right to marry, rightly–as marriage is a private value exchange between two autonomous individuals who possess the inalienable right to engage in such exchanges free from government interference; or any other kind of disruption–and yet stand silently by while the government thrusts a value exchange upon the proprietor of a cake shop by demanding, at the point of a government gun (i.e. it’s “the LAW”…which can only mean force, which is ultimately the threat of punishment, which is violence), that he or she violate their conscience and perform a service for homosexuals that they do not which to perform.  In short, while it is fine for the government to compel by force an individual to dispose of his or her private property in the name of “equality” (whatever the fuck that means…it’s a bullshit meme), it is somehow an abuse of government power and a moral atrocity to forcefully compel those individuals who wish to marry to do so with only members of the opposite sex. In both cases, it is the government seizing by force the right to define “appropriate” value exchanges between individuals, even in cases where the relationship poses no direct threat to nor manifests as a direct violation against any citizen of the State.

Thus, for government to declare one value exchange moral (gay marriage) and another immoral (religious expression via the disposal of private property…that is, one’s business) represents an arbitrary ethic, rooted not in reason but in the notion that government, not individual LIFE, is the plumb line for MORALITY, and, via logical extension, TRUTH.  And this means that individuals can only exist, metaphysically and morally, for the sake of government (and this IS collectivism…or, in the economic vernacular, Marxism), and not the other way around–which is the only rational political ideal. This philosophy, being completely backwards to logic and reason, representing a world-view that is decidedly anti-life, must always, always, always end up in tyranny…and misery for the denizens.  It represents a philosophy that has its seed in Satan’s lie in the Garden of Eden:  That the individual exists to be sacrificed to a standard of “good and evil” that is wholly outside of him/her; mutually exclusive of him/her, and arbitrated by a metaphysically-excused (somehow) “authority” which is granted the right by God (or whatever Primary Consciousness is being pressed…the Worker’s Utopia, the Racial Ideal, the Pride of the Nation, Equality–the Level Playing Field, the Poor and their Perpetual Provision, etc.) to force, by hook or crook or firing squad or suicide bomber or dunking chair or guillotine or Tyburn Tree, the unwashed masses into “right” thinking and behavior.

Incidentally, this is the very philosophical heart of Christianity in America today, which dreadfully–and artfully–follows John Calvin’s cohesive Platonist interpretation of biblical doctrines to a terrifyingly accurate degree.

Christian suicide bombers?

Far fetched?  Go ahead, pick a sermon from any church, on any give day.  Listen to what is being said.  What are the root assumptions about the existential morality and empirical worth of individual human beings one must hold in order to arrive at such doctrinal interpretations?  I promise you, Christian suicide bombing is only one spark away.  For crying out loud, the logical conclusions of the doctrines are already openly being preached.  One has no further to look than John Piper’s declaration that Christian women, in order to honor the “authority” of their husbands, and to practice their proper submissive duty, may have to endure a night of smacking (paraphrase), and then bring the issue up not with law enforcement, but with their Pastors…who are ALL men, and, being full-on advocates of the doctrines of categorical male-dominance, will surely be sympathetic to her side of the story.

Right.

For crying out fucking loud…how far away from this premise do we really think “honor” killings are?

Not far enough, I can assure you.

Next, another friend of mine on Facebook posted this ostensibly powerful argument.  And, by way of prologue, allow me to state that this kind of thinking is a brilliant tactical move on the part of those who seek to subterfuge their hypocrisy (and this subterfuge is not necessarily conscious, nor is their hypocrisy…I do not want to accuse this person of outright deception, for I don’t believe he is of that character) via strong emotional appeals:

Here’s an analogy that should explain why forcing anti-discrimination measures is necessary. Let’s say that instead of a bakery, this is was a pharmacy. And instead of the lesbian couple looking for a cake, let’s say they came because one of them is having a DEADLY allergic reaction to something, and is in need of an Epi-pen (sp?). And let’s also say hypothetically that this is the only pharmacy in range of said couple that has epi-pens (and the nearest hospital is too far away to reach in time). The couple demonstrates that they have enough money to pay for one. But the pharmacy owners refuse to sell the epi-pen because they don’t approve of the lesbian couple’s “lifestyle.” The point of the argument is that if you are going to have a business that is open (and advertised) to the GENERAL PUBLIC, and if you are not willing to serve certain people based on who they are and how they live their lives, then don’t be a business that is open to the general public. Even in the most “socialist” of countries (that are democratic/representative), you will never see laws that mandate that a business must serve everyone no matter what. If a customer is being disruptive, rude, etc, most of the time a business has the absolute right to NOT serve said customer, and can probably kick him/her out. Bars do it all the time. I find that many of the arguments used to defend the “right” of businesses not to serve (or hire) the LGBT were also the same arguments used to defend Jim Crow. If mandating that a business cannot refuse service on the basis of sexual-orientation is a violation of a business owner’s “rights,” then by that logic, so is the repeal of Jim Crow laws. Should we repeal the Civil Rights Act then, if this is “tyranny?”

Now…there are many, many points made in this comment.  Some are more salient than others.  Therefore, in the interest of avoiding a full-on Voltaire-like catalog of literature in response, I attempted to address only those points I thought demanded a rebuttal…and this editing of my responses persists to the end of the conversation.

There are many things to say in response to your post. I will write more tomorrow. But for now…Jim Crow law was the government declaring that businesses were not free to exchange values as they saw fit. You cannot legalize discrimination any more legitimately or morally than you can FORCE by law non-discrimination. They are both two sides of the same philosophical and political coin. Anti-discrimination laws are closer to Jim Crow than what I believe. It is the government compelling by force the individual exchange of value.

And further, simply because an act is reprehensible does not demand government coercion. People are free to be racist assholes. And I am free to ignore them and spend my money elsewhere and proclaim their bullshit to the world in an attempt to change behavior via better ideas. It is always the tyrant who thinks the government needs to decide to whom YOU should relate.

This person then offered another comment:

It is fair to call government the “mother” of Jim Crow LAWS. But the PEOPLE of the South, collectively and individually, were Jim Crow’s extremely horny father (as far the actual laws are concerned). Outside of police crackdowns on marches and protests (sit ins, etc), the enforcement of Jim Crow was hardly “top down.” The (white) people of the South loved it and were more than happy to enforce it themselves, as groups and as individuals. They did not have to be “coerced” into discriminating. They would have done it with or without laws. And if that’s the case, what exactly can a powerless and disenfranchised individual do? The ugly & racist behavior of many white people and white-owned businesses were exposed over and over again, with no change. And many individuals suffered as a result, especially those who sympathized with and/or participated in the Civil Rights Movement. My point is this: it took a more “evolved government” to actually end Jim Crow. The Federal Government, I mean.

********For the record, I do not believe that the federal government was or even is finished “evolving” into being the government that it should be. In fact, I believe quite the opposite, but that is to be a LOOOOOONG conversation & debate for the next family reunion ;)***************

Honest & friendly question here: do you feel that Affirmative Action and/or racial quotas should be legal (but not required, of course), within private and/or public institutions (which includes private businesses who directly receive tax dollars for any reason and/or government contracts? I’ve had a revelation lately when it comes to government & and its people.

A government can only be as good as its people, collectively. Which I think ties in to my point about Jim Crow. Generations of individuals in the South were programmed with everything except syringes filled with the “racist gene.” It would have happened with or without government, with or without fear of punishment. There is a reason why there hardly exists any official documentations or interviews from SOUTHERN White people who participated in the Civil Rights & abolitionist movements and/or rebelled against Jim Crow. I’m not saying they didn’t exist, but their numbers in the “not a racist/pro-slavery” category were definitely a minority for a reason. After all, it took literal US Military force to let black people into the same SCHOOLS. I’m not sure if that applied or still applies to 100% private schools, but if it does, GOOD! Especially if I have to see ads for private schools on bill boards next to federal highways (designed specifically to advertise to those driving on said highway) or at movie theaters (the private school I went to from k thru 12 does this…weird :/), or if it entitled to tax-funded police protection, etc.

******I am only saying that private schools must comply with non-discrimination laws to be able to legally advertise in such places, not arguing against that general right ;)***************

I’ve applied this revelation to the gun control debate. In my opinion, the most logical reason why strict gun control laws work well in other first world countries is because their people in general do not view guns like Americans do (I’ve spoken with enough foreigners and have seen polls on this, trust me). They do not view guns as a tool to “defend oneself.” Most of them see it as a tool that can cause great harm and shouldn’t be allowed in the hands of just anyone aged 18+, or at all. because some police forces within in these countries don’t even carry guns…and that MIGHT explain why they have such disproportionally lower fatalities caused DIRECTLY by law enforcement officials (some of these countries have 0…TOTAL. An old co-worker of mine, who spent his formative years in England, told me that people in England will “tell on you” if you have a handgun [England’s gun laws pretty much ban privately-owned handguns, assault, auto, and semi-auto firearms entire…just shotguns & hunting rifles mostly].

I do know that Australia did have to do a “gun grab,” mostly just by giving monetary compensation for people to give up their guns (with…of course, the alternative being incarcerated). But VIOLENCE by the government, as a tool to enforce this law, would only have been tyrannical and unjustified if the non-compliant citizen violently resists arrest, DIRECTLY causes damage as a result of fleeing (or hiding his/her guns from) law enforcement.

My responses:

Jim Crow laws were not restricted to the south. It’s important to remember this. Government was actively legislating business to patron transactions, in this case discriminatory, in both the North and South. A small minority of Americans worked tirelessly to end the Jim Crow atrocity. Before the government was compelled to act, these people had to change minds with ideas. This being the case, it disproves the implicit assumption in your last comment: that people are inherently and pervasively flawed and will not commit to righteous action except under threat of government violence. This is indeed your premise when you claim that government is “needed” to end discrimination, and was necessary to end Jim Crow: Man on his own will always pursue evil, and therefore a special “authority” must compel him to “right” action and thinking by threats, violence, imprisonment, and confiscation of property .

This, incidentally, is the same Platonist philosophy which has been at the root of every human moral outrage in world history, from wars to genocides to chattel slavery to forced sterilization to Satan’s lie in the garden of Eden. It is the root philosophy of both orthodox Protestantism and Catholicism and why I devote an entire blog to dismantling the doctrines and ideas of the church today in America. But government was not needed to end Jim Crow. What government needed was to be utterly stripped of its power to regulate individual transactions, business or otherwise, in the first place. For THAT was the root cause of Jim Crow’s moral atrocity, not people’s racism. Racism is powerless against the individual until it finds a friend in government. A white business owner may not serve blacks. But only the government can force the business owner around the corner, who would otherwise do so, to not serve them either.

And do you not find it somewhat contradictory and ironic that the same government which demanded segregation somehow now must be put in charge of ending it? How does the government get a pass on its own abuse of power and its rank moral offense? Simple: it’s the government. And government is the “specially” appointed authority needed to compel “fallen” man. It holds the keys of both good and evil; which of course destroys both completely by making them a function of whatever government decides they mean at any given moment. First the government says discrimination is good. Then declares it evil. This massive inconsistency is proof enough that government had and has NO business regulating morality.

Government is not an arbiter of ethics. It is FORCE, period. Full stop. It gets things done by coercion, period. Full stop. It knows of no higher authority than itself. With strict limits set rigorously upon it by a free people, it can be efficacious. But it is NEVER good. It may be a force for good. But it is always FORCE. Therefore the standard to which it must always be held is the freedom of the individual to exist for his own sake, by his own choices, to his own ends, exchanging value with whomever he wishes in whatever capacity he sees fit. Whenever government is allowed to substitute itself for any one of these things, tyranny always follows.

*

A legitimate function of government is to protect individuals from direct violations (“direct” being key) against their person or property. Since no private citizen “owns” the public school, by definition, a private citizen preventing the admission of a student or students based on race would constitute a direct violation against that student. This being the case, I find it no abuse of power for the government to use military/police to force (because government IS force) the inclusion of the student or students in question.

Whether public schools themselves are a just function of government is a different argument.

*

With respect to your example of the lesbian couple, the life threatening allergic reaction, and the bigot pharmacist: While emotionally provocative and certainly difficult if not impossible to morally accept, it still does not justify the kind of government interference you argue it must. Here’s why: Ultimately, your example, by logical extension, really seeks to make some individuals culpable for the death or injury of others simply because of what they own and what they choose to do with it. There is no direct violation occurring…but you are advocating the idea that the pharmacy owner should be compelled by a government gun to part with his private property simply because he happens to find himself in a certain place at a certain time. This makes the right to own property and dispose of it as one chooses merely a function of situational context. And if the government claims the right to dictate what you do with your property in one context, it–that is, government–not the rights of individual man, becomes the benchmark of morality. And this, unlike your hypothetical example, has been the greatest source of death in world history.

There is no functional difference between making a business owner responsible for the death of someone else because of his right to dispose of his property, and making the passerby legally culpable for not stopping to intervene in a mugging. The principle is still the same: in certain contexts, the government has the right to take what is yours (your property, your person) and give it to someone else.

Finally, and again, your metaphysical assumptions come through loud and clear. Man is fundamentally evil. At the end of the day he can do no good without threats and force. Ideas and reason are not enough to compel man to compassion in situations like the one you describe. We must give government ultimate authority to control and compel because the example you site is not only possible, but INEVITABLE. And this root metaphysic drives your entire political and existential world view.

It’s not original–no offense. Like I said, it is the root philosophy of humanity since the Garden of Eden. It is the root of every atrocity committed by man: government ultimately owns man, because man is evil and depraved by nature. FORCE is the ultimate arbiter and catalyst of good. Either good is compelled by an “authority” (who somehow gets a pass on the depravity which controls everyone else), or there is no good at all.

For my next post, I would like to explain and express further my notion that this person’s metaphysical assumptions concerning man are professed loudly and clearly in his comments, and why they are unreasonable and must necessarily lead to the death of the individual…that is, his or her categorical sacrifice to the “authority”, represented in this peculiar ideology as a government mandated by the Primary Consciousness to arbitrate “equality”.  But of course what our ideological adversaries never concede is that death is the only true material and existential equalizer.

Part Eight of: Collectivist Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal

Calvinism/Philosophy

“So who are you?  Or more to the point, who knows you? You’ve probably allowed very few people to know the real you, warts and all.  Everyone else is presented with an image you’ve managed to create.  And you aren’t the only one.  Somewhere along the line we all learn to pretend.  We adopt society’s idea of what a successful person is and we spend a lot of time trying to protect that image. We drive cars we can’t afford.  We pad our resumes.  We smile.  We act happy and teach our kids to do the same.  We work hard to make people believe we have it all together.”

(p. 24, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Now, pay close attention, because this paragraph is a beautiful example of the evil deception which passes for “truth” and “sound doctrine” in the Christian church today.  It is a sleight of hand…a nod to the individual while at the same time making the point that the individual is not only–or, in a sense, not really–a reprobate, but is a full on lie.  The lie of hell, and we all are born convinced of it.

What this is here is a collectivist proselyte drawing an impossible line from a brooooad fucking generalization to an unknowable particular.  Which makes the generalization worthless; which makes the point worthless; which makes the message worthless.  Welcome to “orthodox” Christianity, Reformed style, in 2014 America.

Generalizations cannot equal specifics by definition…let’s just get that shit out of the way right now. And so generalizations, since we are all individuals, cannot ultimately define the nature of human existence.  But when you proceed from a metaphysical assumption that is decidedly collectivist–for example, ALL human beings are “fallen”; ALL human beings are “pervasively and totally depraved”; ALL have sinned (and I must disagree with Paul here, at least if he is arguing that “sin” is a direct function of our categorical metaphysical error)–then there is no such thing as the individual.  Therefore, there is no such thing as a specific…everything–all reality–is an extension/function of broad generalization.  The “individual” is a lie; a farce; an illusion.  The “real” you, to which this paragraph is referring, isn’t REAL at all.  That’s their whole fucking point here.  The “real” you is the you you only THINK is real, because your very nature demands that you reject the “truth” of the group God has called you to–you are rebellious by nature–and live in a purely make-believe fantasy world of free will, individual choice, and your singular, individual, mind.

On another note, a cursory glance around you reveals this paragraph to be a lie with respect to some of its examples concerning behavior.  We do NOT all drive cars we cannot afford.  My truck is a 1996, bought and paid for, costing pennies for insurance.  My new little car for driving the girls around was a third of what an average mid-sized sedan costs.  My wife’s car is a 2005 with a hundred thousand miles.  Neither I , nor my wife, have ever driven a car we cannot afford. So, even on the basis of a single individual, myself, and a single example–the car–I can declare this paragraph false and its author a liar.

I know people who rarely smile.  I don’t teach my kids to “act” happy but to BE happy by understanding their inherent SELF (i.e. individual) worth as human beings, and their inalienable right to own the full sum and substance of their own minds, bodies, and property; and that only the sad, confused, manipulated, victimized, and oppressed will allow some high school drop out tell them what to do with themselves and their money and where to live and go and what to eat and drink simply because the asshole happens to stand in front of a podium and claim he has been “called” to “stand in God’s stead” FOR Him and TO them, while at the same time, by the metaphysics and epistemology he teaches, declaring that there is absolutely no way he can actually prove this.  They just have to take his fucking word for it.  It’s called “faith” he says.  You have to agree with him before you understand him.

Nonsense.  Plain and simple.

Lies upon lies and more lies on top of that.  Lies is the “orthodoxy” of the church today, and they have gotten very, very good at it, as this little neo-collectivist primer we are discussing proves.

But that’s not really the point of this paragraph now, is it?  No.  The point isn’t to proclaim that you are some poor misunderstood sinner who eeks and scratches out a miserable, tortured existence in the quiet still of a barren, cold room in the dark …alone and a liar.  No.  The point of this paragraph is, as I have discussed, to explain that YOU, yourself, don’t really exist.  That this “person” you must lie about in order to get along in “society” (whatever the fuck that is…”society” eats an awful lot of shit, and takes a lot of blame for something that an abstract concept cannot possibly be guilty of, because it doesn’t actually exist)…yes, that this person you must lie about in order to get along in “society” is simply dream.  And the reason you MUST lie about yourself is because your SELF, itself, is a complete lie.  In order to proclaim that there is a YOU which defies the “truth” of the collectivist metaphysic you are forced to lie about it. That’s because “you” are really evil, the concept, such as it is in its absolute, infinite singularity.  And as such, and by definition, YOU cannot be observed as distinct from the evil which is you.  You pretend and perform for the crowd like a monkey on a leash dancing to the organ grinder’s tune because that’s your nature.  You are LIE.  You are the FORCE of DEPRAVITY.  There is no real individual human being which can exist within it thus.

The only way for “you” to arise, then–that is, as not a full on lie–is to manifest as an extension of a group…the “real” group.  The one that God “really” likes.  And that, of course, is the neo-Reformed, neo-Calvinist juggernaut we see forming ever more rapidly from sea to shining sea, and beyond, preaching the same satanic lies it always has, from that day of its medieval spawning to this.  And here, of course, is where the metaphysics get a bit muddy (well…they are always muddy, its just that the scum is now rising to the surface, forming an oily sheen, where it is more easily observed):  If there is no you, then how can YOU be integrated into the group?

Punt!  And, as John Immel says, out goes the contradiction into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”.  For here, at this point, you simply have to trust your resident, local “man of God”; that when he says God is “calling” “you” to this group of “fellow sinners” to His “glory” so that through collective navel gazing and wailing and lamenting your absolute and categorical inability to do anything God can be pleased with, because He hates your very guts and only deigns to tolerate “you” because of His Son.  Who, for some reason died on a Roman cross for an infinitely vile scum-eating, blithering dickhead like yourself, who is and was and will continue to be a product of his own infinite metaphysical depravity and general existential assholery (which makes Christ’s sacrifice the greatest act of irrational behavior in world history, but, whatevs…).  Yes, just take your pastor’s word for it, he explains.

Of course, this begs the following question:

How can you take his word for it if there is no YOU?

Aaaaaaaand…

Punt!

 

Cause Plus Effect Always Sums to Zero, Therefore “Cause and Effect” is Not Actual, it is Conceptual: Why “cause and effect” is purely a human cognitive notion used to organize what man observes, and is not a “force” which governs how material reality interacts

Calvinism/Philosophy, Epistemology, Metaphysics

This will be a short post, because this is fairly simple to explain…well, it is now, after boiling down a very long hand-written post to its salient and self-evident points.

Cause and effect are mutually exclusive ideas…that is, what is the cause cannot also, simultaneously, be the effect; and what is effect cannot also be the cause.  Each notion has an absolute definition which must remain consistent in order for “cause and effect” to have any meaning in the first place.  At the same time each notion depends on the other for its value and relevancy.  What this means is that the cause is not actually a cause without an effect.  There is no such thing as a cause with no effect, by definition; and the converse is also true.  So, in other words, each notion obtains its value and meaning as a direct function of the other.

For instance, a cause is only able to be defined as a cause and observed as a cause via the effect, which makes the cause merely a direct extension of the effect, which I have already explained must be absolute (i.e. the effect is absolutely and utterly the effect…it cannot simultaneously be a cause).  And this renders any actual distinction between cause and effect impossible.  The distinction is purely conceptual; a product of the human capacity to conceptualize what he or she observes. The converse, naturally, would also be true.  An effect is only able to be defined and observed and identified as an effect via the cause; its value and relevancy a function of the cause, therefore making the effect merely a direct extension of the cause; and the cause must be absolute (i.e. a cause cannot simultaneously be an effect).

This renders any actual distinction between cause and effect impossible.  Such a distinction can only be made conceptually, as a product of the human conceptualizing brain, which is uniquely able to organize the environment in such a way.

And from here you can see why the title of this article makes sense.  “Cause” and “effect” are both everything (i.e. absolutes, which must possess a consistent and ineluctable definition at any given moment) and nothing (i.e. each one deriving its value and relevancy as a direct function of the other, rendering each one a direct extension of the other, thereby making moot both concepts altogether).  Everything and nothing are mutually exclusive, which means that everything and nothing cannot possibly be the existential state of any object or force in question.

To write the equation mathematically, everything is 1, and nothing is zero.  1 x 0 = 0.  The product of both “cause” and “effect” separately is zero.  And thus when you couple them together as “cause and effect”, or rather, cause plus effect, in order to complete the notion, you get, presented abstractly, 0 + 0.  Which of course equals zero.

The point is to show that cause and effect is not an actuality…is not a causal force which somehow, outside of man’s conceptualizing brain and therefore his life, exists as some actual, tangible, efficacious objective reality and causal power.  But rather, the material universe is what it is, and it is a singularity, not ruled by “laws of nature” or other forces which are in reality human-derived concepts, much like “cause and effect”, and another one of my favorite punching bags, “chance” (which we will look at later).  The material universe, being an infinite singularity, makes all objects within it likewise infinite singularities, parsed and given meaning and relevancy and truth by those who possess observation coupled with an innate ability to make a conceptual distinction between SELF and OTHER (whatever object or objects are observed to be NOT SELF).  And thus, truth is a function of the truly self-aware agent: God and Man.

He who is able to know and define SELF as SELF is the Standard of Truth for all which is observed; and is likewise he who gives value to everything in the universe, and is the most valuable.

Reason thus demands that all castes and hierarchies, and distinctions of all sorts, must inevitably crumble under the weight of infinite individual human worth.  Because these castes and hierarchies and distinctions are not actual, they are conceptual.  Therefore all human beings can only be judged according two things:  their own self-ascribed values, and how they wish to freely exchange those values as a function of their individual attributes and desires (excepting, of course, the decidedly irrational desire to exploit and violate a fellow human being, or God).  In this sense, then, one having “judged”, has not been in the least judgmental.

“I, Depravity.” (Part Seven of: Collectivist Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal)

Calvinism/Philosophy

“As we learned in the last session, your spiritual progress is directly related to your relationships…

If the group’s goal is to make progress spiritually, then it makes sense to find out where you are now.  And figuring out where you are means taking a hard look at who you are and who you are not.”

(p. 23, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Notice here, once again, that “spiritual progress” is only a function of “your relationships”…which means “the group”, which is a full on collectivist mentality.  Which is always destruction and death and misery by way of collectivist philosophy, which is the root of all of the horrors and abuse ever wrought upon the world, from Kim Jung-un to Caligula to the Babylonian Captivity.  It will undoubtedly be the philosophy of Gog and Magog.

Since spiritual progress is thus group progress, and group progress is the only legitimate existential progress (by way of logical extension of the premise), one’s life, it must be assumed, must be completely submitted to the group, period.  And again, with one being unable to state this often enough, this is collectivist (commonly, “Marxist”) philosophy in pure, uncut form.

“As we learned in the last session, your spiritual progress is directly related to your relationships.”

Yet more affirmation of the group metaphysic.  The orthodox notion of “total depravity” means that individuals are depravity itself…that depravity is, in fact, each individual’s metaphysical absolute.  This being the case, there is really no autonomous “self” by which anyone can reference their life’s context and content.  You are depravity, which is absolute.  As such, there is nothing apart from you which you can claim untainted and untouched by depravity.  And again, since you are depravity itself, there is nothing else to you.  Your body and mind are illusions…you observations and thoughts, beliefs and assumptions are facades.  Your depravity is absolute, which means it is infinite, which means there is nothing else besides.  The phrase then “I am depraved”, is false.  There is no “I” anywhere in the existential equation.  There is no separation between “I” and “depraved”.  The more accurate rendering of the phrase–that is, more in keeping with the philosophical assumptions of orthodox Christianity (which is basically all of Christianity today)–is “I, Depravity”.

You see, “I”, as distinct from your evil,  is the great lie…the whore of your mind, and it needs to be stoned to death by the group in service to “your” liberation; what they call “salvation”.  Of course, the question begged is that if there is no such thing as you, because there is no separation between you and Depravity, then just who is getting “saved”?

The answer? The group alone is “saved”.  Which makes the purpose of your individual self this: elimination in service to the group.  And who is the group?  Those who are in charge, period.  The authority, which is God’s proxy here on earth.  Or, in other words, God, Himself, as far as you are concerned.

And this is why I laugh so hard when I see Christians on television wringing their hands about the swath of death and dismemberment being wreaked upon the middle east by the carriers of Islamic world plague.  The only difference between Christian “orthodoxy” and the Islamic fascist hordes is that the Islamic fascist hordes have no compunction about taking their assumptions to their logical conclusion:  believe or die, infidel.

*

Depravity represents a categorical force of evil, which possesses no legitimate consciousness or awareness of SELF.  It is blind…instinctive, and pitted against the group by its mere nature, rendering you, as an individual, an animal of sorts.  A monster of pure, unrestrained apostasy and vice.  Unthinking, unknowing, unloving.  Having no real consciousness then (and for the moment we will forgo discussing the fact that absolute and infinite depravity must be fundamentally equal to and the moral equivalent of God, Himself, making current Christian theology the wide road, ironically, to hell)…yes, having no real consciousness then, the individual, representing absolute depravity, has no rational nor functional nor efficacious epistemology; that is, he or she cannot know anything…cannot apprehend truth of any kind.  All existence (self) and all truth (understanding) can only come about via the wholesale destruction of the individual in service to the collective.  Therefore, only by complete integration to the group, with the full expectation of the death of SELF being the inevitable price of inclusion, does the individual have access to “life” (and this is ironic beyond words…not to mention a full on contradiction in terms).  Alone, you are literally nothing at all.

Stay tuned for part seven.

The Fork in the Existential Road: Good and Evil are separated by mutually exclusive existential notions, and all philosophies are either one or the other

Physics and Metaphysics

There are really only two ways to describe the nature of the material universe; and this divergence is the root of all philosophical disagreements, and ultimately, of all wars and other violent conflicts.

Let’s discuss Option A and Option B.

Option A is to consider all objects, including man, to be the absolute source–or ABILITY–of their own existence, and the singularity of all of their actions and reactions. In other words, at the root of all cause, effect, space, time, distance, speed, etcetera is the object itself.

So, in the case of cause and effect, for example, one might say that an object IS its own cause and its own effect. It causes upon another object because of its root ABILITY to cause upon; and it is caused upon by another object because of its own root ABILITY to be caused upon. A tennis ball hits a racket because IT is ABLE to hit the racket; and the racket strikes the tennis ball in return because the ball is ABLE to be struck by the racket. The ball itself is the root of why it can both hit and be hit; it is ABILITY. The apple is on the tree because it is ABLE to be on the tree; and the apple falls to the ground, not because of gravity but because it is ABLE to be caused upon by gravity. That is, without the ABILITY of the apple to exist, and this absolutely of itself, neither the tree nor gravity could have any effect on it. Gravity, in other words, is not the real cause of the apple’s falling. The real and singular cause of the apple’s falling is the innate ABILITY of the apple to fall in the first place. Existence is completely of the apple, and existence is a prerequisite to any other object or “force” possessing any influence upon it.

The same could be argued for time and space; distance and speed, and so on. The reason an object exists at a specific time in a specific location or moves at a specific velocity because it possesses the innate ABILITY to do so. This makes the root of ALL of these forces the object itself. That is, any given object IS its own time and its own space; its own cause and its own effect. All of these forces then are and can only be direct functions of the object; which means that the object’s infinite and absolute ABILITY to be what it is, is the source of how and why it can be observed to possess any physical property or move in any specific way. This then relegates physical laws, or the laws of physics/nature, to mere conceptual descriptions of the object as it exists relatively to another object or other objects at any given moment.  And I say “relatively” because an object’s ability to exist must be absolute and infinite.  That is, its existence is a function of its infinite ABILITY to be whatever it is. Since it IS, its IS, which is merely a derivative of its ABILITY to be, must be infinite; must be absolute. To declare otherwise is to declare that the object exists not of its own ABILITY to be, but as a function of something else. That is, its ABILITY is not its own, it is of something OTHER…something outside of itself.  Which means that it really isn’t itself at all, but is something else. And this view makes all objects merely a function of some other thing…and so nothing which which is said to exist really exists at all.  Everything is something that it is NOT; which means that everything is really nothing. That is, objects we observe to be aren’t really what they seem. They are an extension of whatever it is which allows them to be (which is wholly unknowable, and we’ll discuss this in a bit); which of course removes the objects from the existential equation all together.

So, the idea that all objects are their own singularities…the root source of why they can cause and be caused upon, or have time and space and speed and distance and mass and temperature and so on, makes the metaphysical irreducible primary of all objects their own ABILITY; that is, themselves, as a function of their ABILITY to be however and whatever they are observed to be.

This of course makes the observer…

Well, wait…let’s define “observer”.

An observer is he who possesses, as a direct function of his own ABILITY to be, the ABILITY to be aware that he is, which demands that he likewise possess the ABILITY to be aware of what he is NOT, which demands the ABILITY to observe both himSELF and what he is NOT.  And this means that there will be an immediate mitigation of the infinite of himSELF into relatively finite relationships with another object or other objects he must observe as he likewise observes himSELF. For there is no ABILITY to observe one’s SELF from what he is NOT if what is he is NOT is not observed.

What I am attempting to explain is that the root of all objects is the infinite SELF of the object; or, the infinite, indivisible, inseparable ABILITY to be what it is, and that this infinity is only parsed by an observer…that is, man, who, as a function of his own ABILITY to be is ABLE to know that he is, and that this demands then that he know what he is NOT. And it is thus through man’s awareness of him SELF that the infinite is made relatively finite, and from this is derived an efficacious reality.

This of course makes man the reference for all TRUTH. The SELF of man then is the source of all concepts which must be employed in order to organize the infinite “relative finity” which he observes into a cohesive conceptual framework so that he can propagate and perpetuate his own SELF as the Standard of what is TRUE and thus what is GOOD. This then makes notions such as time, space, distance, speed, up, down, etcetera merely a part of man’s conceptual framework by which he organizes the objects he observes in order to serve him SELF; because it is by him SELF and only him SELF that anything has any meaning or relevancy at all. Beyond the conceptual framework of man’s ABILITY to know SELF from OTHER there can be no TRUTH. “Objective reality” then, being a concept, is rooted, like everything else, in the absolute standard of TRUTH and MORALITY which is man’s life. Outside of man’s life there can be no such thing as “objective” or “reality” or “objective reality”, because absent he who is ABLE to make the distinction between what he IS from what he is NOT there is only the infinite ABILITY of objects to BE, which cannot amount to any separation of objects at all, because ABILITY is infinite, which makes the the objects infinite, and there can be no distinction between infinity (infinity times object A + infinity times object B = infinity) absent the ABILITY to make that distinction; and man alone of all God’s creatures possesses that ABILITY, revealed in his use of language which is entirely conceptual. Man alone makes the conceptual distinction between SELF and NOT SELF. Thus, man alone is the root of TRUTH; and within this TRUTH is the idea of “objective reality”. That is, “objective reality” is only true and only good if it affirms the standard of TRUTH, which is man’s life.

So here we have a summary Option A: Man’s life is the source of reality.

And now, mention this to someone.  Anyone.  And notice how little time it takes for that someone to cry “subjectivity” or “moral relativism”. This is an indication that the detractor does not grasp the argument. Man’s ABILITY to be is inexorably tied to his ABILITY to know he is; and this is inexorably tied to his ability to conceptualize that which he observes, both him SELF (his body) and whatever he is NOT. Which means that man’s ABILITY to be is his ABILITY to conceptualize his existence.  And “objective reality” is indubitably conceptual. You see, without man, “objective reality” is irrelevant TO him, which makes it irrelevant, period.  That is, man’s existence is what makes “objective reality” relevant; is what gives it any truth or meaning.  And if this is the case “objective reality’  cannot be claimed to be either “objective’ or “real” except as man qualifies it and man is affirmed by it.  “Objective reality” is a function of man, not the other way around.

So when we realize that man’s life is the only rational standard of TRUTH and MORALITY (which is sort of redundant because morality is in fact a function of truth, metaphysically speaking) then we have rightly identified the only objective reference for any idea or action.

The truth is that those who preach an “objective reality” outside of man are the real subjectivists (which ironically makes Objectivism in fact, Subjectivism, because it has no rational nor consistent explanation for how it is possible for man to in fact BE man, and therefore to know anything). They are the ones who, at the end of the day, must appeal to mystery as the root of their existential ideas, because knowledge is impossible, and the ABILITY of man to be him SELF is due to “forces” outside of him, which destroys man at the metaphysical level entirely. If you are an Objectivist, you can be forced to concede (unless you are as stubborn as the mystics you deride) that according to your own beliefs, man cannot possibly exist at all.

And, apropos to this, Option B, which is the philosophical root of all evil, and it is by far the most common view with respect to how existence and the universe are understood.

Which is…depressing, really.

*

In this instance, reality is defined this way: Objects are not in and of themselves the singular sources of their own existence. Their ABILITY to be is not a direct derivative of themselves, but is a direct function of something outside of them…beyond them. That they are an absolute effect, and some external force or thing is the absolute cause. Now, this makes the existence of the material universe wholly dependent on these external (and thus unobservable) forces which create it. In other words, objects in the universe have no singular innate ABILITY to be what they are. Their ABILITY to exist, to cause and be caused upon, etcetera, is not in fact their own, but belongs to some other force or agent which, again, exists wholly outside of them. And in this case, of course, “objects”, or “material universe”, includes man.

For the moment, I will avoid a digression into why those who claim that we, and the rest of the material universe, are some kind of “grey area” of existence.  That is, there is no such thing as the kind of “black and white” reality I am discussing; indeed, they recoil at what they perceive as my “either/or” philosophy, arguing that reality is never so starkly divided.  But I will say this:  There is no rational argument for a “gray” existence…that is, there is no rational argument for one who argues that man is a conglomerate of him SELF and the forces of nature/the “sovereign Will” of God which govern/determine him.  For I submit that no one who professes such a perspective can tell you just where each component to man, or any other object, begins and ends.  Ask them to tell you just where man ends and “God’s Will”, or the “laws of physics” begin.  I promise, you will get nothing but the “mystery” argument, if they bother to answer you at all.  In my experience, either subterfuge, ad hominem, or a termination of the discussion altogether is the common response.  The reason for this is because the fact is, whether people are comfortable conceding it or not, reality is black-and-white absolute.  Either an object is it SELF or it is not.  Either man is man or man is not man.  To pretend that a metaphysically distinct singularity can be born of mutually exclusive existential causes is foolishness, nothing more.  To argue that what is–with IS being its metaphysical absolute–is both a product of itself and something outside of it is nonsense.  It cannot be both, period.  If something is itself, it must be of itself.  If it is not of itself completely, then it is not of itself at all.  Which means that it is, in fact, something else…which means it doesn’t actually exist.  If we say that the red rubber ball exists, then the red rubber ball must have the innate ABILITY to exist.  If the ball does not have the ABILITY to in fact be a ball, because it is an absolute function of some unseen force or forces outside of it, then we cannot rationally declare that the red rubber ball exists.  The forces from which it is absolutely derived are the only thing which exists (and these, again, are not observable, which reduces “objective reality” to subjective nothingness).  The red rubber ball is a phantom…a lie.

Moving on.

In various religions, it is “god” or the “gods” which cause all things to be; which is the singular ABILITY allowing for the “presence” of the objects in the universe. In atheism and atheistic philosophies, it is the “laws of nature” or the “laws of physics”. Occasionally you will meet a religious scientist who claims that both “god” and the “laws of physics” are causal; or that “god” created the laws of physics, which are then causal. Not only are both of these perspectives redundant, they also defy any rational explanation.

Attempting to be as laconic as is possible (for me), I will point out the fundamental weakness of the perspective that all material objects including man are a function of either the sovereignty of “god” or  “gods”, or the “laws of nature”:

Those who promote such an existential viewpoint are obligated to explain just how man, whose existence is a full extension of forces outside of himself, is able to exist at all, let alone know anything and therefore promote a specific philosophy or idea, or criticize another as being false. By their very own metaphysical definition, man is NOT HIMSELF. Man is merely a direct function of some other absolute, like “god” or the “laws of nature”, which determines the entire sum and substance of his existence, which must include his thoughts, beliefs, and actions. For if you cannot separate the body from the forces which utterly compel it, then you cannot separate the mind from those same forces; and this is because it is impossible to make a rational distinction between the body and the mind. The mind and the body are effectively the exact same thing. You possess no observation, no thought, no feeling apart from your body. Those “out-of-body” experiences you hear about? What is the singular reference for them…that is, how does the person know that this experience is “out of” body? Because they have a body as the absolute reference for their existence. If they didn’t have a body, they could not qualify the experience as “out-of-body” in the first place. It is the body which is the absolute reference for all we know and feel and do. Everything we experience is a direct function of our bodies, period.

And I submit that “out-of-body” experiences are all fictitious and irrational anyway. Without a body, there is no YOU. If you observe, then you must be SOMETHING. There must be a distinction between you and what you observe. And that SOMETHING which is observing, is your body. No one knows anything apart from a material manifestation of SELF. A mind needs a body with senses, otherwise there is nothing it can know.

So if the things man observes are inexorably governed and caused by unobservable forces which utterly determine them, and man is likewise a material object subject to those same forces, and thus his brain, which is his mind and thoughts, is also subject to those same relentless, determining forces, then how is it possible that any man can rise above these absolute forces of “objective reality’ and proclaim that he knows of them? By his own existential definition there is no HIM to know. Both he and what he knows or believes has nothing to do with him, but are merely another extension of the forces which compel all things as functions of themselves. And therefore there is no such thing as “objective reality” because there is no such thing as anything at all. Any idea or belief or notion is purely an illusion…awareness of SELF is a lie; a phantom. There is no man, so there is no one to claim that “objective reality” has any relevancy or meaning at all.

And enter the mystics, who claim to have somehow, by divine inspiration, risen above their metaphysical, illusory ether to know this or that or the other thing, and to proclaim “truth”. And just how they do this or know these things is…well…who can say? Only they know. You cannot understand because it defies reason, and because you are not them.

And from this we get moral equivalency, and from moral equivalency we get all manner of death and destruction and horror.