Category Archives: Epistemology

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part SIX): The objectively subjective consciousness fallacy

I suspect that the bulk of the criticism of my theory of objective, universal moral ethics will focus on the conscious observer. Consciousness is something to which I clearly appeal as being integral to objective moral ethics, as well as epistemology and metaphysics…well, to the whole of philosophy, really. In other words, let me be clear: the claim that consciousness is purely subjective and epiphenomenal with respect to reality makes reality impossible to define, thus there can be no truly efficacious defense of reality at all. All declarations of truth—of anythingmust and do proceed from a singular conscious frame of reference.

This is not a defense of the “primacy of consciousness” metaphysic, but it IS a defense of the inestimable and critical metaphysical value of conceptualization—which is the only relevant function of consciousness—and similar value to epistemology; and from epistemology, to ethics, and the rest of philosophy.

All truths are conceptual, and this is because all truths must be defined, understood, and willfully applied, otherwise they are meaningless. And “meaningless truth” is a contradiction in terms. It is not enough to observe a tree, but “tree” must be conceptualized in order that it be defined and differentiated from the rest of reality. All distinctions are fundamentally conceptual. Conceptualization is thus the fundamental efficacy of what is observed. Observation qua observation is redundant. Sense data need not be sensed at all unless it is conceptualized, and via conceptualization, constructed into an epistemological framework by which the the observer can derive and discern truth.

I find it helpful to assume that “consciousness” and “conceptualization” are essentially synonymous…at least with respect to metaphysics and epistemology. The only relevant function of the consciousness is to conceptualize…to create concepts for what is observed, and from these build language, and from that language communicate with other observers.

And this is key. Asserting the object necessity of consciousness in building an efficacious and meaningful epistemology is NOT asserting consciousness, itself, as the objective metaphysical and/or epistemological standard. Conceptualization implies language, and language implies communication, and communication implies “other”. Meaning that if the conscious self (the self-aware observer) conceptualizes and thus must communicate, then the self necessarily implies other selves with whom to communicate. So it would be foolish to pretend that the self qua self is the root arbiter of what is truth and reality. That is, to assume that one’s self qua one’s self is the plumb-line by which anything is called real, and true, and ethical, is indeed merely an appeal to solipsism, which is completely irrational, because it is easily proven to be wholly subjective. Yet accusations of solipsism and other such vapid, ethereal ideologies are invariably leveled against anyone who claims consciousness as not only necessary, but fundamental, to objective reality, truth, and morality, by those who assert the primacy of existence as the metaphysical absolute.

So if it isn’t the self, itself, which provides the singular and immutable reference and standard for truth, morality, and so on, then what is it?

As stated, the only relevant aspect of consciousness is conceptualization, to the point where there can be no fundamental difference between them (consciousness IS conceptualization, and vice versa); and conceptualization implies language, and language implies communication (with the OTHER, or other selves). Therefore the objective epistemological and ethical standard is necessarily that which enables objective, relevant, meaningful communication. In other words, the standard is that by which it can be said that communication has actually occurred. And that of course is conceptual consistency. Another way of putting it is “rational consistency”, or reason.

And this is why contradiction is an abject imposter of truth, and thus cannot be successfully applied, and thus all attempts to do so are necessarily, universally, and objectively immoral (see part five of this series). Contradiction denies the efficacy and meaningfulness of communication, and likewise language, and likewise conceptualization, and likewise the observer, and without the observer there can be no one to define and declare that reality is in fact real; and thus reality, itself, collapses.

The presumption that all morality must invariably be subjective—a collection of nothing but infinitely relative hypothetical imperatives—of OUGHTS—which have nothing ultimately to do with objective reality—that which IS—is precisely rooted in the arrant denial of any objective, and thus fundamentally relevant and meaningful, value of the consciousness to existence…to reality, itself.

*

So, what are the underlying presumptions of the of the nature of consciousness upon which are established the arguments against universal, objective morality?

They are as follows:

That consciousness has no foundation in existence because it is entirely transient (born out of nothing, dies into nothing). And existence is the root standard of objectivity. Therefore consciousness must be entirely subjective. Yet consciousness is singular and absolute in its essence—it is experienced as “I”.  And thus it is concluded that it must be singularly and absolutely subjective. Any attempt then to interpret, define, and apply one’s existence from the internal frame of reference of the conscious self must necessarily result in complete chaos. Sense data, interpreted and applied to, first and foremost, the promotion of one’s self, which is entirely subjective and thus entirely relative, will necessarily pit man against his fellow man, and against his environment, leading inevitably to social collapse, societal collapse, structural collapse, and infinite moral atrocity.

The conscious self then must be anchored to that which is outside of itself. That is, all the conscious self thinks, wills, and desires must be referenced to an objective reality outside. Sense data is to be considered inexorably distinct from the conceptual interpretations of the consciousness.The data is categorically a priori, de facto, intransigent, constant (in its nature), and absolute. This reality—this reality which exists, period—is the reference by which all thought and belief, ethics and politics, should be tied in order to avoid the inevitable chaos that a primacy of consciousness shall deliver. The primacy of existence, on the other hand—the conscious will’s utter deference to objective reality outside itself— is humanity’s bulwark against superstition, mysticism, ideology, self-absorbtion, moral relativism, and all other forms of epistemological and moral relativism, which can only lead to chaos, vice, and misery.

Sense data is a bridge between the infinite objectivity of existence (of reality outside of one’s self) and the infinite subjectivity of consciousness. Consciousness does not interpret what the sense data delivers—it does not create meaning. Meaning is dictated to the consciousness from the “outside world”. What the sense data delivers, it delivers. Any notions regarding greater meaning to the self; any interpretations beyond the face value of the facts; any arrogant assumption that the conscious self is entitled to any role or should have any say In the grand and greater purpose of existence and objective reality is a violation of truth and an appeal to madness; it constitutes rank violent selfishness, which seeks to sacrifice objective reality, and all others in it, to one’s self, merely for one’s own subjective pleasure.

The idea that consciousness is in any way creative, that it any way determines the fundamental nature of what exists—of what IS—, that it is anything more than a receptacle into which objective sense data is dumped, and for no other reason than to perpetually inform the consciousness of its utterly transient, subjective, and thus ultimately irrelevant nature, and that consciousness “exists” only to regurgitate the self-evincing facts of external objective reality, and thus to promote existence as everything and itself as nothing…yes, any and all suggestions that consciousness is anything more than some enigmatic, fundamentally unimportant, redundant epiphenomenon of existence, is to be condemned and dismissed as an appeal to pure mysticism at best, madness at heart, and pure criminal bloodlust at worst.

The self should ultimately resign itself to being basically a disinterested bystander to reality and existence. It should seek moral good, yet understand that moral good is found in the rejection of the efficacy of will and an acceptance that one’s conscious existence is ultimately an illusion, and thus of no real  purpose. There is no reason to assert one’s will upon the world, nor upon one’s fellow man, since doing so can only lead to chaos, and thus unnecessary misery for one’s self and others. The limiting and/or elimination of unnecessary suffering by rejecting the idea that one’s self is entitled to anything from existence is the greatest, and only, moral good achievable for the conscious self. To have compassion on one’s fellow man is to recognize that the violation of him to one’s own subjective will doesn’t do anything for one’s self in the end, and only invites unnecessary suffering. One should seek to make the subjective experience of conscious existence as painless and comfortable as possible.

The practical ways in which this shall be achieved vary widely, of course, since no objective moral behavior can be prescribed from a purely subjective conscious existence. Morality, which is only of any use to the conscious self, has no relevance thus to objective reality outside. Morality then, constitutes the subjective, or hypothetical “ought” to the “is” of objective reality.  All moral codes and strictures, then, are relative, and attempts to mitigate unnecessary human misery should be interpreted contextually only, and no attempts should be made to categorically condemn any person, or group, based on some kind of impossible objective moral value system. This means that proponents of the metaphysical primary of existence (of “objective reality outside one’s self”) can be found in all manner of social systems in the world and world history, from national socialism, to representative democracy, to anarchism, to communism, to oligarchy, tribalism, theocracy, etc. etc. Since existence is objective, and consciousness is subjective, then differences in how men choose to organize themselves politically and socially ultimately boil down to subjective arguments over which system reduces unnecessary human misery more, or less. There is evidence that liberal democratic systems are temporarily more comfortable, but comfort is, itself, simply a relative assertion. All debates about the supremacy of one political system over another are really debates over “how much” suffering is too much; and this because humanity, being conscious and thus purely subjective and transient, is always giving way to the unrelenting encroachment of objective reality. In other words, suffering is endemic to consciousness. Death is inevitable for the self, and so the nature of one’s life, morally speaking, is fundamentally irrelevant. Disagreements over the “proper” social and political systems then, are ultimately unresolvable, and thus will inevitably lead to violent conflict.

There is no objective moral or political argument to make if we accept that existence implies the fundamental subjectivity of human consciousness. We understand that everyone eventually dies, and by this we mean that the consciousness fades into oblivion, and leaves a legacy with no objective meaning, and humanity is utterly at the mercy of the objective reality outside itself, and has no real substance, and no real place in the grand scheme of things. All ethical and sociopolitical debates are little more than killing time until we return to the anomalous abyss from which we mysteriously sprung.

*

The problem with this interpretation of consciousness is that not only does it preclude the possibility of any objective morality, which is scary enough in itself, but it precludes the possibility of any real ethic whatsoever (please see parts three and four of this series for a comprehensive explication of this). With the rejection of consciousness as anything but a complete anomaly to reality and existence, its categorical subjectivity making it completely insufficient to the application of truth, one finds an empty hole where ethics should be. Since the conscious observer acts from a completely subjective frame of reference, he is ultimately unable to apply truth in any objective way, since he is always inexorably acting from his own consciousness.

Without the applicational of truth to a purpose outside of truth, the truth can never be verified as actually true. Truth then becomes a merely tautological proposal—truth is verified by the mere fact that it is true (it’s truth because it’s true; its true because it’s truth). Objective reality which is fundamentally outside of man—outside of the conscious self—is a reality which finds him completely irrelevant. His will is of no ultimate value; his thoughts unnecessary.

And despite arguments from objectivists, scientific determinists, and other adherents of pseudo-rationalist philosophies, there are only two types of experiential outcome from  this kind of epistemology. And they are…

Since man is fundamentally unable to apply truth, he is ultimately unfit for existence. Man proceeds from his singular conscious frame of reference, but because this frame of reference is purely subjective, and irrelevant to the objective reality outside himself, his will is incompetent; his thoughts are irrational; nothing he does can have any real value or meaning to anything which objectively is. There are only two possibilities then for man as far as his existential experience are concerned: totalitarians or chaos. It’s either complete authoritarian control, or the complete lack thereof. If man is left to himself, his innate and inexorable existential insufficiency demands that he implode into a thoughtless, hopeless, helpless, chasm of complete and violent existential failure, each man taking all other men with him.

The other alternative is to appeal to some transcendent authority…a collection of rulers who can appeal to some kind of divine or extra-ordinary enlightenment. A priest class, if you will. Maybe actual priests, or maybe representatives of a self-deluded liberal democracy, or the commissars of some nominally atheistic communist state. Whatever. In any case, the totalitarian manifestation of the rational failure of primacy of existence metaphysics and epistemology leads to the very chaos that that totalitarianism is intended to prevent.

And the irony cascades.

END part SIX

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part FIVE): Formula and Explanation of Objective Universal Moral Ethics

In this installments of the series, I will elaborate upon my theory of objective and universal moral ethics. In part one I made the claim that this was a relatively straightforward and simple proposition, and I still maintain this to be the case, though my approach is perhaps unexpected.

My theory of objective moral ethics is based upon a number of basic and uncomplicated, yet fundamental, logical proofs:

1.Truth, in order to be validated as true, and thus meaningful, and thus relevant, and thus not a tautological fallacy, must have purpose…purpose, that is, to something other than itself.

2. Purpose implies volitional application of truth by that which observes truth from an immutable and singular conscious/conceptualizing frame of reference. This frame of reference is known as “the Observer”.

3. Conscious, volitional application of truth cannot occur if the truth being applied (or, more specifically, attempting to be applied) is presupposed to be both IS and IS NOT at precisely the same time from precisely the same observational and/or conscious-conceptualizing frame of reference. This constitutes a contradiction.

4. Failure to apply truth consistently (attempting to apply a contradiction) renders truth necessarily meaningless, and thus of no use to the observer. The observer is therefore unable to validate any sense data, idea, thought, suggestion, supposition, assertion, etc. etc. and thus can make no actual, relevant observation of any kind. Thus, his very metaphysical essence and purpose is nullified and he is consequently anathema to reality. Yet this also constitutes a nullification of reality, since a reality absent the conscious-conceptualizing observer is one that cannot be fathomed. An unfathomed reality is a reality which cannot be defined, and thus cannot be said to exist at all. That is, a reality which does not exist to the observer is, in every relevant and meaningful way, a reality which does not exist, period.

5. Failure to apply truth consistently (attempting to apply a contradiction) undermines all that IS at the fundamental, irreducible metaphysical level. This failure must be considered an objective ethical violation—an objective evil—given its categorical nullification of ALL. The opposite then must necessarily be considered an objective ethical affirmation—an objective good; to apply X where X is X, and only X, and only ever X, and cannot be considered simultaneously NOT X, is an objective, universal moral action.

Here again is my formula for moral ethics (and I use a formula because this is the best way to distill a universal, immutable axiom down to its simplest description. A formula is also good a way to demystify a claim; to declare its universal rational, practical, utilitarian, and egalitarian essence. This empowers the axiom…it does not, as some might claim, render it merely a cold, academic proposition. It makes it infinitely and wonderfully relevant; it does not relegated it to the ethereal esotericism of religion and spiritualism, or any other such psycho-emotional bromide which seeks to ostracize the intellect):

Truth (X) = Purpose (of X) = Application (of X—where X cannot be applied either implicitly or explicitly as IS X and simultaneously NOT X)

This ethical formula makes it possible to objectively validate the moral value of any actual or theoretical action taken in service to any idea, based upon the rational consistency of that idea. That is, should one attempt to apply a truth claim which either is, or is interpreted or manipulated to be, a contradiction in whole or in part, we can know that that application is necessarily immoral in that the attempted application of a contradiction is the attempted application of false truth, which leads to conclusions which must necessarily deny the observer by making efficacious integration and interaction with reality impossible by him, which undermines both reality and the observer.

Assume X (a given truth) is “apple”. That’s is, we can declare that the fruit in our hand is an apple. And from that truth, we can do  virtually an endless number of things with the apple. But there is one fundamental thing which, if we choose to attempt it, nullifies the truth and leads to conclusions which contradict our very selves and reality (and everything and everyone in it). And because of this, this choice must be considered an objective evil.

if one chooses to define the apple as being both “apple” and “NOT apple”, then “apple” can never truly be applied; any application thus shall be infinitely inefficacious, and the consequences shall be metaphysically and physically destructive. If I claim, directly or indirectly, implicitly or explicitly, that apple is simultaneously NOT apple, then both the physical and metaphysical universe are inexorably damaged. “Apple” here is a concept which can have no meaning to me, thus that particular truth is utterly stripped from me, and indicates a fundamental failure of my conceptualizing powers, which has profoundly negative  metaphysical implications. I am no longer able to apply the concept “apple”; any attempt to do so must lead to chaos. There is no such thing as an IS which simultaneously IS NOT; any attempted application of such is the very definition of chaos. To attempt to apply “IS which IS NOT” inevitably leads to both physical and metaphysical death for the observer, and along with him, reality itself, by removing the means by which reality can be declared real. This must therefore be considered objectively immoral.

Complicated contradictions like those found often in science (e.g. determinism) and religion (e.g. divine omnipotence) are sometimes difficult to see (or people are unwilling to see them) and thus in response to the necessary resultant chaos from their attempted application, more and more contradictions are offered as solutions. Oftentimes, these “truths” are punted into some ethereal, pseudo-intelligentsia limbo, where they are said to be so profound and so mysterious and so infinitely paradoxical that they are beyond man’s apprehension, and therefore must be taken on faith alone.

In summary, the attempted application of contradiction results in a chaos which implies physical and metaphysical death to the conscious and volitional observer, and therefore to reality, itself. Thus, the attempt to apply contradiction is universally and objectively immoral.

Certainly, these ethics have an inexorable part to play in declaring the objective immorality of the most overt and atrocious of human behaviors, such as murder and theft and rape, etc. However, broaching this issue here is both unwise and unnecessary. Unwise because it involves a detour and distraction in the form of a complicated and perhaps abstruse (for a specifically ethical discussion) examination of the metaphysics of the observer (of the Self); unnecessary because the task here was to dismantle Hume’s is-ought dichotomy as it pertains to the denial of objective and universal morality, which has been accomplished.

“One shall apply truth consistently.”

Or the obverse:

”One shall not attempt to apply a contradiction.”

There is no “ought” to these categorical moral imperatives, though I suppose one could render a kind of ought:

“One ought not attempt to apply a contradiction.”

But this ultimately misses the real issue, which is that the is-ought dichotomy Hume asserts with respect to moral ethics is a non-sequitur. It isn’t that Hume is entirely wrong about deriving an “is” from an “ought”, it’s just that this is entirely irrelevant.

Objective moral ethics (or ethics at all) aren’t about how one ought act in service to truth, but how one will act—this is why they are objective and universal. Truth cannot be a contradiction—all contradictions are fundamentally null; all attempts to synthesize IS and IS NOT, or One and Zero, are void. So the objective moral ethic isn’t that one ought not apply a contradiction, but that one cannot apply a contradiction. And this is the heart of why attempts to apply contradiction are metaphysically and physically destructive. They  cannot be applied, because they are a categorical lie, and so the consequences of attempts to do so result in, ultimately, the death of the Self and the death of Reality.

As I have stated, application of truth is necessarily volitional, so we need to be clear: the truth is not dictating its own application to the observer who applies it. Truth must be willfully enacted, and this to validate its truthfulness to the conscious/conceptualizing observer. The fact that one must inexorably apply truth consistently—that one has no choice but to do so—does not make truth’s application any less volitional. It is merely an ethical fact that one shall apply truth consistently or one shall not apply truth at all. Should one attempt to apply a contradiction, he shall reap the inevitable negative existential consequences. And this is why attempting to apply contradiction is universally and objectively immoral.

“One shall apply truth consistently.”

This is your categorical moral imperative. There is no hypothetical scenario possible. There is no “if”. Since contradictions are epistemologically impossible, the consistent application of truth is a categorical ethical imperative. A hypothetical imperative, should we attempt one, could only be fallaciously rendered as follows:

“One ought apply truth consistently IF one wishes for truth to be in fact true, reality to be in fact real, and one’s self to in fact exist.”

And here you can see the madness of the hypothetical. Truth and one’s existence are immutable premises, not subjective conclusions.

END Part FIVE

 

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part FOUR): The implicit epistemological contradiction of Hume’s Law—an epistemology both with and without ethics

As we continue our deconstruction and dismantling of Hume’s Law, it is important to examine the intrinsic contradiction found in the relationship between ethics and epistemology as implied by the philosophical assumptions underwriting Hume’s claim. What Hume’s Law does is create an implicit mutual exclusivity between epistemology and ethics. This is a violation of the basic principles of philosophy and philosophical thinking, and is a large part of why Hume’s law is a rational disaster.

I went into the relationship between philosophical categories in part three of this series in some detail, so I will only summarize it here. The five major categories of philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics—-do not exist in a vacuum of themselves. They all share a corollary relationship with one another, and the sum of the categories serves to reinforce the metaphysical primary (the nature of reality, itself…the root IS of all that is). However, it can be helpful to simplify the relationship between the categories by arranging them linearly, as follows: Metaphysics implies epistemology, epistemology implies ethics, ethics implies politics, politics implies aesthetics. This fact has profound and inescapable implications for any ethical claim, and certainly for Hume’s Law. What the inseparable and corollary relationship between the philosophical categories demands is that if any one category is deemed objective—and by “objective” we mean fundamental, irreducible, universal, absolute, and infinitely consistent—then all categories must be equally so. If one makes a claim to “objective truth”, which is an assertion that one’s epistemological premise naturally promotes axiomatic distinctions between correct knowledge and incorrect knowledge, then one is necessarily, though perhaps implicitly, making a claim to an objective ethic. This fact is an immutable philosophical attribute. One cannot claim objective philosophical category X and then from that conclude that philosophical category Y is therefore subjective. This is impossible. But this logical failure is completely endemic to Hume’s Law.

For example, “Objectivism”,  as far as I understand, is a label derived primarily from the assumption of the objective nature of “Existence”…Existence being the Objectivist metaphysical primary. This being the case, then any objectivist is bound by intellectual integrity in the form of rational consistency and non-contradictory truth to assume that their ethics are likewise objective. Again, it is a rational impossibility to achieve a subjective from an objective. And interestingly, and ironically, this point is the exact point Hume’s Law makes. This being the case, it is then impossible to obtain a subjective ethic from an objective epistemology (a subjective right and wrong from an objective truth and falsehood). But this is what advocates of Hume’s Law inexorably do, and their intellectual and philosophical failure in this is insuperable. What they claim is “no objective and universal morality”, but what they mean is “no objective and universal ethic” (please refer to the distinction between ethics and morality I spoke of in the last article of this series).

Advocates of Hume’s Law do not seem to understand how profoundly undermining this is to their arguments. Those that do will argue that they are not in fact making a claim that ethics, itself (the category), is completely subjective, but only that moral ethics are. But the fact is that one cannot rationally argue for any objective ethic if one presumes that volitional behavior (conscious behavior, as a function of consciousness) is irrelevant with respect to objective truth (objective epistemology). Meaning that whatever one chooses to do is irreducibly subjective, making volitional behavior completely absent any real and true foundation, which means it can have nothing fundamental to to with the “objective truth” from which that behavior is given meaning.

Remember, one MUST assert an ethic if one is asserting an epistemology. And if one is asserting that the epistemology (fundamental truth)  is objective then that which necessarily follows—the ethic—must likewise be objective. And what is the ethic? The ethic is the application of truth to purpose which validates truth. Correct application of truth validates that truth is in fact true, thus this application is “good”. Incorrect application contradicts and thus does not affirm truth, and thus this application is “evil”. Application of truth is necessarily and inexorably willful…that is, it is the volitional application of truth. A non-volitional application of truth is impossible, because such application cannot be said to have purpose, and without purpose truth is irrelevant. And irrelevant truth is meaningless truth, and this is a contradiction in terms.

What are the ethical options for one who proclaims that truth is objective but volitional behavior in the application of truth is not? There are only two, and each one is as invalid and rationally bankrupt as the other. The fist option is to declare that ethics simply do not exist at root; that their fundamental subjectively gives them no foundation and thus no fundamental connection to objective truth and thus no fundamental connection to objective reality…they are severed from the “Real”, as it were. This fails the rational integrity test because epistemology without ethics is impossible—without ethics, truth cannot be validated as true. The second is to appeal to some non-voluntary ethical system, like legality. But in order for a legal ethic to manifest one must assume and then establish an authority which has the power to compel ethical behavior. Yet only two such authorities can be claimed: human and divine (and make no mistake, Determinism, which is the metaphysical trope of many atheists and agnostics, to which they appeal as a get-out-of-god-free card, is merely an iteration of Divine Mysticism…it appeals to an omnipotent force which infinitely eludes man’s understanding because it infinitely determines all that he does, all that he is, and all that he knows, and thus thinks). The first authority fails because it is comprised of men…men must choose to establish such authority; men in authority then must choose to compel by force other men into the legal ethic. )Without force, law is not law, it is suggestion). So to claim non-volitional ethical behavior in service to one’s “objective” epistemology by relying upon the choices of men to establish coercive authorities and the choices of rulers to enforce legal ethics is a contradiction, and thus fails at being an involuntary ethic, and thus is an invalid alternative to moral ethics. The reason legality is an ethical disaster and inevitably leads to totalitarian misery is due to the inherent contraction which says that ethical behavior shall be compelled in the masses by the ethical choices of the few who rule. Legality is an attempt to ethically synthesize free will and force. It will never work, and for obvious reasons. Thus, legality cannot be considered a valid ethic, let alone an objective one. Thus, to assert a legal ethic is to assert no ethic at all.

The second fails because divine coercion of men’s behavior is a root undermining of men themselves. A man unable to act in service to truth of his own conscious volition is a man for whom truth is utterly irrelevant, thus such a man can never apprehend truth in first place. Truth absent the ability to apply it is truth absent purpose. And purposeless truth is irrelevant truth, and irrelevant truth is meaningless truth—a contradiction in terms. Thus, one cannot simultaneously claim such a thing as objective truth but no objective means to apply that truth via one’s conscious volition. To remove volition from understanding is to undermine understanding entirely, and therefore no objective truths can ever be claimed because they cannot be validated. The appeal to the divine authority (like Determinism) to force ethical action is in reality the assertion that no ethic exists. This violates the philosophical axiom which says that epistemology MUST imply ethics.

The point I am making with all of this is that one either concedes objective moral ethics—volitional behavior in service to truth—or one cannot concede that any ethics exist at all. And without ethics, there is no objective truth. Without ethics, there is no epistemology. What is true and false must be volitionally applied (morality) in order that he who apprehends truth can validate it according to observable outcomes from his own existential frame of reference. A truth which cannot be volitionally applied is irrelevant to the observer, and thus the observer has no way of knowing that truth is in fact true.

In short, epistemology demands ethics; and not just any ethics, but specifically moral ethics.

*

The idea that truth can be known, but never applied, is really the heart of Hume’s Guillotine, and this is both a great irony worth pointing out (because it mirrors the irrational ethical implications of Christianity’s description of man’s fallen nature), and a fundamental failure of logic which collapses the whole idea. One can know truth, but never act in service to it. Truth, absent the ability to apply it in service to a purpose, makes truth infinitely irrelevant to he who apprehends it. In other words, Hume’s Law apologists want their cake and to eat it, too. They want to proclaim the existence and fact of objective truth—the ability to apprehend it and declare it—yet they want to deny any objective application of truth in order to practically, empirically, and efficaciously validate that the truth is in fact true. They would argue that truth is self-evident, but absent any objective application of truth, truth is only really “evident” to itself.  This is circular, redundant truth, which is a logical fallacy in the form of tautology (it’s true because it’s truth; it’s truth because it’s true), not to mention an infinite reduction to zero. Any truth without validation via the objective volitional application of truth by the conscious observer of truth (he who apprehends and declares that truth is in fact true) can never, ever, by any means be known to be true. Truth without application to purpose by the observer is irrelevant truth, which makes it meaningless truth, which is a contradiction in terms.

And the great irony here is that what the advocates of Hume’s Law do is the exact same thing the evangelical Christians they so vociferously deride as irrational fairy tale—worshipping harpies do. These “doctrinally pure” Christians, particularly of the Calvinist pedigree, proclaim that man, though he is capable of apprehending truth from falsehood, is, due to his fallen and depraved nature, utterly incapable of applying this knowledge to any good end, making all his actions evil by default. And thus, it is not that man commits sin and is thereby condemned, it is that he IS sin—meaning that his very will is banished from ethical behavior altogether. Man is death incarnate not because he chooses to act in evil ways, but because his nature precludes him from ANY moral compass whatsoever. He has knowledge, but his will is infinitely irrelevant to that knowledge, making that knowledge useless to him. And thus, he is essentially born dead. And this is why he needs saving…and in comes the opportunistic priest class to rescue him from his existential dilemma. For a price, of course. It will cost him his freedom, his individuality, his dignity, his property, his mammon, his labor, his truth, his self-will, his mind, his family, his future, and his life in general. But hey, at least he is right with God.

The Humean ethical apologists are no different.  They make grand claims to objective truth and existence, but then declare that ethics is dead and morality with it. Via some  impossible and essentially mystical contradiction—like objective epistemology without objective ethics—they bind man to an intellectually bankrupt determinist fate and offer him the bromide of nihilistic scientific practicality, with implicit nods to the psychopathic priesthood of the State; and offer draconian legal controls with State violence and the seizure of body and property (as incentive and punishment) as some kind of ethical answer to their empty metaphysics. The deride morality as a merely the shiny obsession of a fool and offer you the madness of the of infinite separation between thought and action as an answer to their ethical failure. They replace the soul with death and the light with darkness.

But hey, at least you are right with god. Not that the Humean apologists will call him that.

END part FOUR

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part THREE): The difference between ethics and morality, why ethics and morality cannot be avoided, and why this is an insurmountable problem for advocates of Hume’s Law

Before we go any future on the specifics of the “is-ought” dichotomy, it is crucial that we understand the distinction between ethics and morality. Anyone not able to clearly articulate the differences between these two philosophical ideas and how they specifically relate has no business discussing Hume’s law, or any other ethical or moral question, for that matter…because they can have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Understanding Hume’s is-ought dilemma and, more importantly, its complete rational, not to mention ethical, failure is predicated upon knowing the difference and the relationship between morality and ethics. Thankfully, it is quite simple.

“Ethics” is the broad philosophical category. Morality is a type of ethics—an ethical system based upon a specific epistemology, and this rooted in a specific metaphysical description of realty…a metaphysical primary. Moral behavior can be ethical behavior, but only if the ethics being implied are rooted in an epistemology which implies morality, and that rooted in a metaphysics which implies the epistemology which implies the moral ethics.

Not all ethics, therefore, are moral. Legality, for example, is a completely different type of ethics, because legality is rooted in fundamentally different epistemology and metaphysics. Thus, there is for example no such thing as a “moral law”…this is a complete fallacy. “Moral law” is a contradiction in terms, because morality and legality presume completely different epistemology and metaphysics (a comprehensive discussion of this can be found in many previous articles on this blog). Speaking of “moral law”, a third example of ethics might be a hybrid of legality-morality that one might find in western liberal democracies, where the law is said to exist in service to moral truths. This hybrid is fundamentally irrational and observably false, because governments dictate, they do not suggest, and you cannot dictate morality. Morality is rooted in choice. One only acts morally IF they are able to exercise choice. Legality is rooted in authority, and authority is force. And forced behavior is by definition behavior which is compelled, and thus is irrespective of choice.

So, whenever morality is discussed, such as in Hume’s Law, it is important to remember that we are dealing with a specific kind of ethics—morality—and these are rooted in specific epistemology and specific metaphysics. Hume’s Law would be anathema to legality, other than perhaps a tangential affirmation of it, because legality cannot accommodate any “ought”—categorical, hypothetical, or otherwise. Legality tells us what ethical behavior one WILL DO—or else suffer punishment from the external authority in charge—not what one ought do—or else suffer consequences that one has brought on himself.

Hume’s Law only addresses morality, and specifically, it is the explicit assertion that morality is an irrational type of ethics, and thus is not objective, and thus does not actually exist, and thus is utterly inefficacious and irrelevant to reality and truth. Proponents of Hume’s Law are NOT—and this is crucial to understand—denying that objective ethics exist even if they think they are (and I submit that likely most of them do). They are merely denying that objective moral ethics exist.

But the declaration of the utter spuriousness of morality MUST be based upon preconceived epistemological and metaphysical assumptions. In other words, ethical conclusions are an unavoidable outcome and consequence of epistemological and metaphysical foundations and assumptions, and are derived directly from them. That is, those foundations inexorably and inevitably lead to ethical conclusions, and thus cannot lead to NO ethics. They may not lead to no MORAL ethics, but they will lead to some type of ethics.

Therefore, the question which should be routinely posed to proponents of Hume’s Law and advocates of the is-ought contraction is: What are your ethics? What is your definition good and the evil if not in terms of morality? And if they have no answer, or their answer is incomplete, then they can have no real argument against morality. Because it means that their metaphysics and epistemology have lead them either to NO ethical conclusions, which means that they have NO understanding of nature of reality (metaphysics) and NO understanding of what constitutes truth (epistemology), OR their metaphysics and epistemology are false and/or insufficient. In either case, they can make no rational claim against morality, since one can only disprove a given ethics—in this case morality— by providing more logical and consistent ethics, and this by holding a more logical and consistent epistemology and metaphysics.

And this, I submit, is impossible…moral ethics are in fact the MOST rational ethics possible. In my experience, without moral ethics one is left inevitably defending either the idea of “no ethics”, which is impossible because any ethical assertion, even the conclusion that there are no ethics, is based upon metaphysical and epistemological conclusions that MUST and NECESSARILY lead to specific ethics (the conclusion that there is no ethics implies that there is no epistemology and no metaphysics, which means that they cannot assert anything about ethics including that they do not exist; in fact, they cannot assert anything about anything at all), OR they are left defending legal ethics, which are rooted in rationally bankrupt metaphysics.

Just quick word on that:

The metaphysics of legality are unavoidably determinist, which makes them inexorably a zero sum proposition. The assertion of determinism is the assertion of nothing at all. Any determining force must itself be determined, since all of its outcomes, according to the very nature and definition of determinism, could at no time, ever, have been theoretical, hypothetical, unknown, or non-existent—in other words, the determinist force at no time could NOT have determined the outcomes it determined, making the outcomes of determinism as infinite and absolute as determinism itself. This leaves no distinction between the determinist force and the outcomes it has determined. This makes determinism an infinite regression to itself, concluding at nothing but itself, and proceeding from nowhere but itself. Determinism—determinist metaphysics, the metaphysics of legal ethics—is a self nullifying proposition

But enough of that. On to part four.

END part Three

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part TWO): What is Hume’s Law as it relates to reality?

In the last article I laid out the basic equation for resolving Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma. Here it is again, slightly modified:

Truth (X) = Purpose (of X) = Application (of X—where X cannot be applied either implicitly or explicitly as IS X and simultaneously IS NOT X)

The objective ought, then, is the non-contrary application of truth.

*

Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma in brief:

Hume asserts that when dealing with the question of morality—what one ought do—there is an inexorable disconnect between the non-hypothetical, objective IS of reality, and the hypothetical, subjective OUGHT of moral imperatives. For example, if God tells us that “Thou shalt not kill”, then, as a moral commandment (as opposed to a legal one, which it technically is, but for this example we will assume it’s moral), it can be more specifically rendered “Thou ought not kill”. The reason that Hume declares the ought statement fundamentally subjective is because what one chooses to do—choice being intrinsic to morality and thus “ought”—can never alter the fact that what IS absolutely and necessarily IS. The IS, you see, of anything observed and declared so, is  rooted in the irreducible and absolute reality which informs choice, and thus the ought implied by choice—or more specifically, implied by volition—must inevitably affirm objective reality, regardless of what it is; and thus whatever one chooses, and whatever one recommends others choose (ought to do), will equally affirm objective reality, making the choices and the oughts themselves purely subjective. IS IS, and always will be, and therefore it is entirely objective. OUGHT is always subjective, on the other hand, because it is predicated on a fundamentally stable and unchanging reality (as said, the objective IS). What one chooses to do may alter how one observes reality, but it does not change reality at its root, because reality is absolute and immutable. It exists outside of one’s wishes and choices and therefore one’s particular morality…one’s  “oughts”. Therefore morality, being rooted in volition and thus on “ought”, is always fundamentally subjective. It has no fundamental meaning beyond the capriciousness of cognition, and the the non-substantive nature of the abstract.

Further, by definition, choice is uncompelled, and thus it isn’t possible to declare what one MUST CHOOSE—or, what one objectively ought to do—because MUST CHOOSE implies “compelled choice”, which is a contradiction in terms (in the strictest sense, I mean…while it is true that one can be forced to choose this or that, if there is no option to not make the choice at all, then the choice itself is a false one). And this is why morality is about what one ought to do, not what one WILL or MUST do, further supporting the argument that morality is subjective.

So the Humean is-ought moral distinction means that one can never presume that one ever objectively ought to do this or that, as though what one ought to do is as objective as the frame of reference—the objective existential “IS”, of reality—to which all oughts are inexorably and naturally obligated. The assumption that oughts can be as objective as the IS of truth—as objective as the reality which is objective irrespective of man’s volition—is, according to Humean moral understanding, a substantial error of logic. What one ought to do must always be entirely subjective, since reality remains reality regardless of the ought-choice. What one ought to do is always hypothetical, and thus any categorical imperative—that one always ought make a specific choice as though it has any objective, immutable, bearing on reality—is impossible. Morality thus is always subjective.

And all of this is fine except for one thing:

It is completely wrong.

Hume’s assertions about morality and the separation between the is of reality and the ought of how the conscious observer shall engage his will in response to reality is, in all honesty, the most egregious relational error with respect to morality that I have ever had the displeasure of examining. And the fact that so many intellectuals—and atheists in particular, who are the most ironic “intellectuals” on earth, and whose apologetics are the most spurious and convoluted you will ever have the misfortune of examining—hang their ethics on such folderol leaves one wondering just where to find the “intellect” in the “intellectual”.

END (Part TWO)

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part One)

The idea of death is something I have rejected from a philosophical perspective…that is, from a perspective of capital-T Truth. I am okay with death form the purely emprical side of things…that eventually our bodies give out for whatever reason and we are returned to the dust from whence we sprung. But from a rational position, one where fundamental epistemological conceptual consistency is the only real basis for knowing anything at all (which is true), nothing about death makes sense. And birth, being death’s corollary in this regard, is in the same position. You see, if we only accept truth based upon empirical “evidence” then we can never arrive at a rational, relevant, and meaningful answer to the question “what is man?”. For man is more than his senses; more than just his body. If he were not, then consciousness would be impossible. The Singularity of the Self…that is, the constancy which is necessary for consciousness, and from consciousness, observation, and from observation, conceptualization, and from conceptualization, meaning, and from meaning Truth, is utterly denied when we accept that man is merely a transient phenomenon; that there is nothing constant and absolute about his Self; that consciousness is entirely finite; it begins with blankness, and returns to blankness, which fundamentally nullifies all which it had learned and spoken in the meantime.

Consciousness is where the empiricists and determinists and objectivists completely fail in their philosophy, which is why they relegate it to mere epiphenomenon—an illusion, with a purely subjective ontology. Consciousness, by their standards, remains “inside”, whilst “objective truth” is that which is found on the “outside”. That this renders consciousness mutually exclusive from objective existence, and thus makes conscious understanding impossible, and thus any claims about what constitutes objective existence and truth likewise impossible, which voids their entire philosophy…well, that never seems to come up much. But we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Consciousness cannot spring from the abyss of absolute unconsciousness (pre-birth) flourish for a while to grasp all manner of empirical and objective truth, and then return to the abyss (post death). The 1 of consciousness cannot be born from and then die to the 0 of oblivion. Consciousness, whether we want to accept it or not, is a Singularity; it is Absolute. The existence of You is predicated on You being a constant. If there is no constant/absolute frame of reference for You, then You is impossible.

You cannot be a function of that which is outside of you, because then You are not actually You. And You cannot be merely relative to that which is outside of You because then there is no fundamental constancy to You, in which case you have no grounded frame of reference by which to define “You” in the first place. And You, and by that I mean Your Self, and by that I mean your Conscious Awareness of Self, cannot merely be some (perhaps complicated or mysterious) kind of cosmic or evolutionary illusion because that begs the question: “An illusion of what?” And that question has no answer because the “what” is that which the proposition (that consciousness is purely an illusion) denies can even exist in the first place. And consciousness cannot likewise be a non-illusory product of some unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative process because that creates the self-defeating assertion that consciousness is direct function of unconsciousness….that somehow consciousness can step out of the absolutely unconscious processes from which it directly springs, observe these processes from a specific and distinct frame of reference, and proceed to make claims about the “objectivity” of the utterly unconscious determinative nature of consciousness.

The only options we have are: 1. That Consciousness IS, and is Singluar, and thus does not come from the Nothing which precedes birth and return to the Nothing which follows death; or 2. That it is a function of either a purely relative existence, unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative processes, or is an illusion. In other words, that consciousness is in fact entirely unconscious.

And only one of thes two options makes consciousness actually possible.

You ARE; and You are Constant. I don’t really care what objectivists, empiricists, scientific pseudo-philosophers, or other nihilistic determinists think—I have listened to their positions on this for years and years and it never changes and never manages to wiggle its way out from under the rock of self-defeating contradiction which crushes it to dust. I have heard everything, from appeals to quantum physics to cosmic evolution to taxicab geometry (where apparently squares are also circles…which, no; this is verifiably false all day long). Any and all attempts to negate consciousness as being what it self-evidently IS fail, always fail, and will fail forever.

So…with that being said, how now can we proceed to understand birth and death from a rationally consistent point of view? Do they even exist at all. Well, subjectively, perhaps. But objectively, no. More in part two.

END PART ONE

There is No Such Thing as “No Such Thing as Absolute Truth”

The claim that there is no such thing as absolute truth is, of course, a bald-faced self-nullifying contradiction. If there is no such thing as absolute truth then the assertion that there is no such thing as absolute truth cannot possibly be absolutely true. It could be true, one might argue, to which I would say: perhaps I will grant you that, however it’s only possible truth, and not absolute truth. It can be known, perhaps, but not known for certain. But…hang on…if absolute truth is not knowable for certain, then how can it be claimed that there is such a thing as absolute truth? It cannot. And thus we must assert that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But this assertion then cannot be absolutely true…and round and round we go. Wash. Rinse. Repeat, as the bottle directs us.

So much for the faux profundity of idiotic, what I call, Dorm Room Philosophy—philosophical neophytes sitting around over a bong or a four pack of artisan beer waxing on with ivy league pretension about shit that no one understands because it’s nothing but tarted up nonsense. Nonsense on her prom night.

Let’s get one thing straight: Contradiction is not deep thinking. It’s make believe. It’s mysticism. It’s a galaxy far far away. It’s not philosophy. It’s not wisdom, and it’s certainly not truth…of any kind.

Back to the flummery of “no such thing as absolute truth”.

If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then what is the point of language? Indeed, how is language even possible at all? If there is no such thing as absolute truth then of course there is no such thing as objective truth…or of objectivity at all. Which means that language can serve no objective purpose. And this being the case, language contradicts itself…it becomes self-nullifying. It can make no certain claim, about anything, and this is an extension of the fact that it is impossible for the user of language (the Observer) to actually know anything…because there is no objective truth, which is to say, following the logic, that there is no truth at allAnd if the user cannot really know anything then there is no fundamental point in any utterance, and thus communication is likewise pointless. Language then becomes categorically irrelvant at the most fundamental level. And that which is by nature irrelevant, based upon explicit,  endemic, necessary self-contradiction is indeed utterly impossible existentially. That is, you might say, as soon as it is manifest, it dissolves into non-being, because nothingness is the only thing it can “mean”.

And if language is impossible then so must be consciousness. For one cannot be self-aware…that is, one cannot know himself, cannot conceptualize himself and then name himself, if what he is is infinitely subjective, lacking any objectivity because truth itself is infinitely subjective and thus infinitely irrelevant. Impossible language is language which is infinitely subjective, which makes consciousness likewise subjective. But if consciousness only subjectively exists, and this fundamentally so, then consciousness, doesn’t actually (objectively) exist. Consciousness then is purely an illusion…which of course begs the question: an illusion of what? You see, from the frame of reference of he or that which is (or is said to be) conscious there is no difference between consciousness and the illusion of consciousness. Because how would he or it know the difference? How would you? How would you know the difference between he or that which is actually conscious and he or that which possesses only the illusion of consciousness? In order for you to claim that consciousness is only an illusion, you would have to know that the consciousness to which you refer is not in reality actual consciousness at all, but is in fact merely an illusion of consciousness. Which would imply that you have an objective frame of reference for actual consciousness, thus proving implicitly that there is, indeed, such a thing as actual, objective consciousness. And if there is such a thing as actual, objective conscioness, then there must be such a thing as objective language, which means there must be such a thing as objective truth. Or capital “T” Truth, we sometimes say. Which means there must be such a thing as absolute truth. And if there is such a thing as absolute truth then there is such a thing as absolute ethics (objective ethics) and absolute (objective) politics and absolute (objective) aesthetics. And pure reason (rationally consistent, utterly non-contradictory, thinking) is how you define them.

END

Why an Opposite is Not a Corollary, and Vice Versa: Seek truth in proper definitions

Though I have touched upon this topic previously on this blog, it never hurts to revisit it. It never ceases to surprise me how even the most intelligent thinkers among us tragically confuse and conflate the concepts of “opposite” and “corollary”. To me, it is the intellectual equivalent of the common conflation of “literally” and “figuratively”. Understand that in this article I am speaking of the philosophical use of these terms…that is, how they conceptually relate to general and overall Truth, as it were. I understand that in common parlance, we read the nuances of people and language…we can easily discern that “literally” really means  “figuratively” when our neighbor declares that they “literally died” when they heard the news that the new bathroom would cost twenty thousand dollars; likewise we understand that “corollary” really means “opposite” when we hear someone explain that the corollary to things going up is that they must come down…we understand what is being said here is merely an iteration of the  common maxim that “what goes up must come down”, which we accept as such and go on with our day.

But when grand truths about existence and humanity and nature are couched in a false assumption about what is corollary, the confusion becomes very dangerous, and obviously misleading. If we believe that the “corollary” to life is death, when in fact “death” and “life” are diametrically opposed, then we have utterly misinterpreted reality and formed an idea about our existence which is about as wrong as it could possibly be. And it is the smuggling in of the false synonymic relationship  of “corollary” and “opposite” with respect to greater and profound meaning that I take issue with, and wish to set straight in order that we may stop leading ourselves astray by committing one of the most obvious and avoidable mistakes of all time: ignorance of the  basic linguistic—conceptual definitions we have set for ourselves.

I offer this article as a primer on the subject…in my customary discursive fashion.

*

The conflation of “opposite” and “corollary” is not unlike the falsely presumed interchangeability of, say, “ironic” and “coincidental”, or “ironic” and “misfortune”, in addition to the aforementioned “literally’ and “figuratively”. One can’t help but wonder how long it will take the English language to contradict itself altogether and lose all practical utility entirely.

A summary of the following article can be stated this way: Opposites do not imply each other as equally existing or occurring simultaneously, and possessing equal and shared relevance and importance in all contexts at all times. Corollaries do.

Corollaries are a single conceptual essence, broken into purely semantic distinctions, mostly for linguistic efficiency. Opposites are utterly antipodal, mutually exclusive concepts. The presence of one does not demand the simultaneous equal representation of the other; in fact, by definition, and apropos, quite the opposite is true. The presence of one implies the utter absence of the other in a given context. If X is going up, for example, X is not going down. Now, I understand that it is the inexorable inverse linguistic-semantic relationship between opposites which gives them a veneer of corollary relationship…of symbiosis. But in any practical application, this relationship is simply not so. If X goes up, X is not also going down; if X goes left, X is not also going right. To imply otherwise gives us neither opposite nor corollary, but a contradiction.

The other day a friend of mine on Facebook posted a quote attributed to Carl Jung…though I’d never stake my life on the claim that facebook memes are entirely beyond suspicion when it comes to correctly assigning quotes to speakers or authors. For all I know the quote actually came from Daffy Duck…I’m just not that familiar with Jung. But we will give my friend the benefit of the doubt and assume that she knows that these words are in fact his words:

”Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness.”

With all due respect, that assertion is at best misleading, and at worst the utterance of a man who has but a tenuous grasp of important conceptual distinctions, and thus has little business making aphorisms of any kind dialoging on existential truth. Because what is being committed here is the rational crime of confusing and conflating corollaries with opposites. Happiness is not “balanced by” sadness/darkness; happiness doesn’t demand that sadness have anything to do with it at all. In fact, by definition, the complete opposite is true.

While it is not necessarily irrational to claim that a concept implies its direct opposite, as I mentioned earlier when noting the inexorable inverse relationship of opposites, the nature of a corollary is not actually that a thing implies another thing, but that a thing is simultaneously and equally that other thing. In this context, I am not of course speaking of contradictions as being actual…I am simply explaining what is being stated when one speaks in corollaries. Corollaries are wholes which are commonly parsed—wholes considered in parts (as opposed to parts which are commonly considered in wholes (e.g. any concrete noun, and even some abstract or pseudo-abstract nouns like “collection”, “bunch”, “chaos”, “government”.)

Let’s take for example the corollary love/value. It could properly be rendered as:

It is love, therefore it is value.

There is a corollary relationship between “love” and “value”, but the corollary—the whole which is considered in parts—is love/value. Love and value are, philosophically, when speaking of corollaries, an “it” not a “them”. The corollary is properly described as “it is”, not “there is”. It is improper to render the corollary as “There is love, therefore there is value”, because the phrase “there is” implies a distinction between love and value; yet when considering the actual corollary relationship between love and value there is no distinction. Fundamentally, love is value and vice versa. Always. In all contexts and at all times. That’s why love/value is a corollary. And having said that, we can see why opposites cannot be corollaries. It is rank nonsense to claim that “it is left, therefore it is right”, or “it is up, therefore it is down”. Clearly that cannot possibly be the case, in any context, at any time. And again it’s not about implication. A corollary does not mean X implies Y. Love doesn’t imply value, it is value at the same time. Left may imply right, up may imply down, but this does not make these concepts corollary. At least not when we are speaking of root, philosophical principles. The concept of “corollary” in such a context needs to be carefully understood and properly utilized in order to avoid utterly careening offcourse and crashing disasterously into conclusions which are entirely opposite of truth.

Now, from this we can approach the distinction between opposites and corollaries from another important angle. Opposites like “happiness” and “sadness” are not corollary because, unlike true corollaries, they are always contextual, and thus always subjective. In other words, opposite concepts are not axiomatic, they are merely practical. They are always subject to a particular frame of reference. They do not apply equally to all people at all times, even given that opposites share an inverse relationship when taken purely abstractly. “Happiness” in a given individual context does not necessarily imply “sadness” at all, like “up” does not necessarily imply “down”, or “left” imply “right”. If I point to the top shelf in the pantry and say to someone “the cereal is up there”, I am not giving any value, and certainly not an equal, corollary amount, to “down there”. To assume otherwise simply confuses the issue and muddies the context of the statement. Certainly, we might make the basic, obvious semantic claim that “up there”, generally speaking, implies a “down there” generally speaking; but with opposites, unless we are in a grammar or linguistics class we are never speaking generally when using concepts like “up”, “down”, “left, “right”, etcetera. In other words, the notions of “up there” and “down there” never really come up nonspecifically. There is always a  particular “who” or a “what” to provide context. There is nothing fundamentally meaningful about “down”  relative to “up” when I am speaking of the cereal being “up there [on the top pantry shelf]”. Likewise, with respect to Jung’s quote, to say that a given individual’s life is happy does not necessarily imply that it is or has ever been to any degree sad. It is simply irrational and incorrect to claim that if one is happy he must also be or have been sad, as though it is through sadness that an individual’s happiness is manifest (and vice versa) rather than through the specific experience of whatever happy things he may have done and been a part of in his life (e,g. Having children, getting married, earning a college degree).  To claim that for one to be happy he must have the personal frame of reference of sadness is an arrant contradiction. For even if one who is happy had in the past been sad doesn’t mean that his happiness is known to actually be happiness because he has also been sad…as if sadness is the frame of reference for happiness. This is to imply that one actually means the other, which of course contradicts their very definitions, which nullifies the concept of “opposites” at root. “Happiness is sadness; sadness is happiness” is a tautological form of rational folderol. Happiness cannot also mean sadness, like up cannot also mean down. The assertion that one cannot experience happiness unless they’ve experienced sadness is, for one, not true or logical, but more egregiously, subjugates man’s existence to rational error.

True corollaries are not contextual, they are objective, universal, symbiotic, and utterly equivalent and inclusive of one another, at all times, absolutely and infinitely so. One means the other; one is the other. A corollary which is true for me is also true for you; unlike oppoites, which are subjective and contextual—what is happiness for me may be sadness for you and vice versa. But things like love and value, labor and property, ruling authority and force, truth and morality, action and ability…these are true corollaries. As they apply to me they also apply to you. If I am loving then I am valuing; likewise if you are loving then you are valuing. If I am acting then I am able to act; likewise you. If I make a truth claim then I make a morality claim; likewise you. If I am laboring then I am owning (that which with I labor—my body); likewise you. If I am a ruling authority over others then I am forcing others; likewise you.

END

Contradiction Cannot Correct the Excesses of Government

Lately I have been watching what are known as “first amendment audit” videos. These are videos where a person or a couple of people go out with cameras and video recorders and take photos and video of public buildings…anything from water treatment facilities to post offices, FBI buildings, police stations, and oil refineries. They interact copiously with law enforcement officers and their intention is to educate them on the right of citizens to monitor government officials and their businesses in the course of these officials performing their public duties.

Now, it is obvious to anyone with even a remedial understanding of the meaning a government “of, by, and for the People” that this is not only perfectly legal but also utterly necessary. History has shown us that a government which operates away from the watchful eyes of the public it is supposed to serve tends to grow fat with corruption, vampire-like with blood lust, and irredeemably addicted to power.

Of course we hear a million times that “in this day and age” [of terrorism] the government cannot be too careful nor too diligent in the protection of itself for the sake of its citizens, and so the legal right to monitor the government in public must be heavily qualified, if not occasionally curtailed. Yes photography and videography is legal, but it’s not wise, they say…and I actually heard a cop say essentially this to a cameraman in one of the videos—“Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.” And what I find so shocking is the fact that not only is this statement so patently false with respect to citizen oversight of government, but this whole line of argument is nothing more than a pretense to the suspension of the first amendment whilst claiming that the suspension shall be IN SERVICE to the first amendment. In other words, the argument is that the government must strictly control the exercise of the first amendment in order that it can protect the people in order that they may continue to live freely, and by “freely” we can presume that this means (in part) to exercise the first amendment.

Do you see the twisted logic here?

This doublespeak is a recipe for tyranny…and though it is shocking it’s not surprising. As I have argued dozens and maybe even hundreds of times on this blog, the premise which underwrites government necessitates that government MUST INEVITABLY become tyrannical. There can be no other outcome; for you will get nothing less than tyranny from a premise which says that the only way to ensure a moral society is to compel men by violence and threats of violence into right thinking and behavior (ethical existence) via a centralized Authority tasked with bringing about some collectivist Utopian Ideal (e.g. The People, Equality, Freedom, Social Justice, Economic Justice, God’s Truth, the Nation, the Workers, the Tribe, the Culture, Diversity, the Coroporation, etc. etc.).

In a “day and age” wherein the world becomes more dangerous for a free nation like the United States (arguably used to be), the solution to whatever problems are faced is not less freedom, but MORE freedom. It is PRECISELY at a time like this when citizens should become INCREASINGLY engaged in overseeing their government, because they understand that it is the habit and the nature of governement to exploit crisis in order to expand its power. Government, like a roaring lion, actively and relentlessly seeks ANY excuse to devour the freedom of the citizen in order that it may indulge its root nature: despotism. This is a FACT, and history is my witness.

I also watched a disturbing video where an off-duty police officer, after a truck driver briefly lost control of his rig and had to perform an emergency evasive maneuver in front of the him, engaged in a fit of road rage whereby this cop chased and terrorized the truck driver for more than 25 miles. Of course the truck driver had no idea that the maniac chasing wildly after him was a cop, as the officer was in his private vehicle and not wearing a uniform, and never showed his badge.

The officer subsequently lied about the situation and brought a completely fabricated charge against the driver of reckless driving and wanton disregard for the public. But because there was absolutely no evidence for this accusation, the charge was dropped and an alternate one for “equipment failure” was submitted instead, which amounted to small fine and no points on the truck driver’s license…but even the “equipment failure” charge was a lie, as the truck had simply struck a bad patch of road and the back end momentarily lost traction and slipped sideways. The fine was literally nothing more than a face-saving exercise for the obviously embarrassed police department. It was also  a “fuck you” to the public in general, I submit. It was a way of saying to us all that if you happen to piss off a cop, on or off duty, for a reason that is entirely false then they will hurt you. Period. You have no redress; you will get no justice. They are the authority, you are the masses. In effect, you are a slave, and they own you. You will NEVER be found innocent if they do not want to find you innocent. If you hurt their pride, you’ll suffer the consequences.

Though the truck driver was found innocent of all charges except for the token “faulty equipment” accusation, which again was nothing more than the police simply refusing to admit their fuck up, the damage had already been done. The mere accusation of reckless driving was enough for this driver to lose his job (which is understandable from the company’s point of view as he specialized in transporting hazardous material); and though the official fine was only $50, the whole affair including lawyers fees and lost work cost him around $2000. The accusing officer retired in good standing with the department and maintains a perfectly clean service record.

Land of the free IF you don’t piss of certain cops, it seems.

Speaking of pissed off cops, let’s get back to the first amendment audit videos. Unfortunately, yet predictably, the vast majority of the time security and the police are woefully unaware of the law that they are supposedly upholding. Even though we do not live in a police state like Nazi German or Stalinist Russia, public photographers are routinely asked to show identification well before any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity has been determined. Photographers are verbally abused, bullied, assaulted, arrested, handcuffed, and thrown in jail on objectively false charges of trespassing, or disturbing the peace, or resisting arrest, or failing to indentify…all manner of false and entirely contrived offenses. And of the dozens and dozens of videos I have watched I have yet to see any ACTUAL violation of the law. None. Not one. Certainly some of the videographers are aggressive and confrontational…clearly they are looking for an altercation. This makes for interesting videos which brings in more views. That makes sense—but I should add that I do not condone this approach. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we live in a society where the freedom of expression means that people are allowed to act like assholes in public. In turn, those of us who reject such personalities are free to act like assholes back, or to ostracize them, or to publicly shame them, or to fight back and/or enlist the police if they get violent. But the State is NEVER justified in making it against he law to be an asshole. A free nation WILL have its assholes…it MUST have its assholes. To regulate assholes out of the public sphere is to criminalize personality, which is to criminalize ideas, which is to criminalize thought, which is the death of the individual, which is the death of freedom, which is the death of the nation.

So here’s a question for you: What happens when the government falls under the control of “pissed off cops”, so to speak. Meaning, what happens when “public service”, which is a natural magnet for narcissists and psychopaths by its very nature, becomes thoroughly saturated with those who wield State Authority in order to satisfy their lust for power, exploit the citizenry for their own gain, and/or merely to feed whatever psychotic craving grabs them at the moment? Indeed, I should add here that, quite frankly, I’m not sure we don’t actually have this already.

What’s the solution? How do you address a government that exceeds the checks and balances of the Constitution because it (inevitably) realizes that the Constitution is utterly dependent upon its own practical authority to wield the force necessary to compel the masses into the right behavior that the Constitution declares and implies? Meaning that absent those in power, the Constitution is less relevant than an dishrag. The Constitution isn’t magic. Absent the practical coercive Authority of the State it’s just a piece of old paper.

Now, I understand already the myriad of responses to this question—what do we do with an irredeemably corrupt government?—which can be  predicted, and all of them can be boiled down to two essential ideas. The first is that the citizens can stage some sort of revolt, perhaps American Revolution style; the second is that they can somehow replace the political class with new members…those who will respect the Constitution and the American people whose rights it exists to validate and ensure.

I’m not really interested in the specific, finer points of each of these solutions to the problem of tyranny. What I want to examine is the underling philosophical premise of them relative to that of the State. That is: what is the root assumption being made about man’s nature and his capacity for and sufficiency to his existence? And the reason why this is so important and so interesting is that within this question resides the most astounding and overt contradiction, a contradiction which has been the bane and the fundamental undoing of the United States since before the ink on the Constitution was dry. For 250 years the United States has been playing a losing game with metaphysical primaries, and now, finally, the wheels are coming off in a most spectacular and terrifying fashion. On the one hand the United States is founded on the enlightenment principle of individual liberty. What this means in summary is that the Constitution acknowledges the sufficiency of man to his own existence; the ability of human will and thus choice to effect moral outcomes and to establish productive social cohesion. In short, man is ABLE, through the exercise of his will, to EXIST. Man is by nature a thinking and thus a necessarily WILLFUL agent, and therefore his natural and most productive state of being is freedom—of life, liberty, and property. FREEDOM, the Constitution implies, is the most efficacious means of ensuring man’s of survival. Man, as an individual, in his natural state, is utterly sufficient to existence. This is why government shall be elected, not appointed by the ruling class; why property and the means of production are privately owned, not loaned to the masses by the State; why terms of governance are voted upon by representatives, not spontaneoulsy dictated to the people and laced with implicit violence; and why men are free to speak their minds up to and including overt and vigorous criticism of the government and its officials. It is because what man thinks actually matters; man’s mind is capable of discerning truth from false hood, and thus good from evil, and therefore is capable of and entitled to a say in how his government behaves and who shall be granted the privilege of running it.

On the other hand, the Constitution ALSO AFFIRMS government. And the metaphycial premise which underwrites government as an entity and renders it an existential ABSOLUTE and a object NECESSITY, and gives notions of its non-existence and lack of necessity the same amount of intellectual credence as most of us would give unicorns and fairies, is the premise which says that man, in and of himself, according ot his nature and residing at the very fundamental core of his being, is utterly INSUFFICIENT to existence; unfit for survival. The pointed necessity of government is the idea that man CANNOT be left alone to exist only unto himself, to and from his own mind, and through his own power to think and to choose and discern and decide between truth and lie, and good and evil. The whole point of government is the metaphysical argument that man simply cannot be trusted to act ethically outside of the auspices  of a supreme coercive Authority which shall DICTATE truth and morality TO him and thereby manifest ethics by FORCE. Authority shall be the purveyor of the LAW (the ethical Standard)…government shall be the Law’s  practical manifestation in the world, and this is the ONLY way to guarantee that man can have any sort of effective, efficacious, and productive existence. Religion calls the great Folly of man’s being which necessitates Authority his “sin nature”; secular philosophy calls it “the will to power”; science calls it “the survival of the fittest”. But they all amount to the same thing: Man cannot  be left alone to decide the terms of his own individual existence. He cannot possibly be expected to live productively and morally and perpetually according to nothing but his own natural capacity. Man must be forced by an external and supremely violent Authority to think and act properly. Government exists PRECISELY because man cannot exist ALONE. in other words, the essential point of the State is to be MAN FOR man.

Think back to the solutions I submitted as the two primary means of rectifying a tyrannical State. Are you seeing the problem? I hope so. Do you see how the contradiction of attempting to synthesize an Individualist Metaphyic (man is sufficient to his own existence) with a Collectivist one (man is INSUFFICIENT to his own existence) creates an insurmountable barrier to any successful resolution of the problem of tyrannny? If man’s nature makes him insufficient to existence absent a coercive authority to compel him into right thinking and behavior, how can he ALSO be sufficient to hold that Authority accountable to a particular ethical standard? If man’s mind and will alone is insufficient to lead a moral and efficacious existence without a government to enable him to do so through its enumeration and codification of “rights” through law and the implementation of that law through force, then how can man claim that his mind and will IS sufficient to ascertain when the government has strayed from its proper duties and needs to be corrected? If man is capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, and truth and falsehood, to the point where he can tell when his own existence is being violated by the State, AND he is capable of articulating efficacious methods of seeking and acheiveing redress for that violation, then he clearly DOESN’T NEED GOVERNMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. That is, the fundamental philosophical premise by which the legitimacy of government is established is contradicted by the claim that man has a right and the inherent ability to either terminate his relationship with government or to replace the ruling class with new members IF he deems that government is no longer acting in his own best interests.

Conclusion:

Here is an enumerated summary of the intellectual error of the notion that government shall be held accountable to the people; and this is with respect to all of my aforementioned arguments on the subject:

1.Because of man’s natural existential insufficiency, he requires a government to hold him ethically accountable; yet simultaneously man is required  to hold government ethically accountable when he deems it no longer capable or willing to properly discharge its duty of holding HIM accountable. Clearly this is a contradiction; if man is by nature insufficient to ethical living, then he cannot possibly be in a position to hold the government accountable to the ethics which necessarily elude the very existence of himself qua himself. If man IS capable of holding the government ethically accountable, then man does not need to be coerced by government force into ethical living. He is quite capable of recognizing ethics and acting upon them all on his own.

2. Since there is no Authority above the Authority of the State to compel it by force into ethical behavior, then we are left to hope and trust that those in power will CHOOSE to act ethically in order to prevent the State from exceeding its constitutional mandate and becoming tyrannical. (And, no, Christians cannot claim God is the Authority above the State because Christian doctrine makes the State merely an extension of him. It provides NO fundamental metaphysical distinction between God and Government whatsoever). However, the root philosophical argument which legitimizes government is the metaphysical claim that man is by nature entirely insufficient, in and of himself, absent a practical coercive Authority (the government), to truly apprehend ethics and to act upon them. Man’s mind and will are inadequate to effectively manifest the ethics necessary for him to survive; that is, his ability to choose ethical action is corrupted by his nature. Thus, the idea that we must trust men in government to CHOOSE to act ethically—as a hedge against tyranny—is a contradiction of the very root premise of government.

3. Government is to use authoritative force to compel the people into right thinking and behavior because they are incapable of this on their own, by nature. Yet it is claimed that the people have a right to reject the government if they do not like the way it decides to wield its authority. In other words, man has a right to choose how he shall be FORCED to act. This, too, is a contraction.

4. It is claimed that the people possess an Authority which trumps government Authority should government exceed its mandate and become tyrannical. Yet it is clearly a contradiction to claim that those under the authority  of government have authority OVER government. If we claim that government rules by the “will of the people” then we claim that people are willingly choosing to submit themselves to governmental Authority, which is a contradiction, AND we imply that man’s will IS an effective means of manifesting just and ethical living . But if man’s will is sufficient and efficacious to just and ethical living, then there is no point in submititing it to an Authority which exists BECAUSE of the premise which states that man’s will is NOT in fact sufficient nor efficacious to just and ethical living.

END

 

The Cognitive Dissonance of “Easy Contradiction”: Why I am accused of being too rigid and abstruse (PART TWO)

I am a “black and white” absolutist philosopher simply because I deny that black can also be white at the same time…that A is also B, that the square is also the circle, that what IS simultaneously IS NOT.  The fact that I reject rank contradiction, which is the bane and the intellectual, moral, and rational failure of pretty much ALL world philosophies, makes me much too petulant and pedantic and confusing to pass for a serious thinker.  I boil down to a thin, simmering layer of arcane (at best) ideology, selfishly demanding that 2+2 not equal both 4 AND 5, and throwing a temper tantrum when this childish demand is not met.

Hmm…

I must say I find it both ironic and hypocritical that so often this criticism comes from some of the most rigid ideologues the world has ever spawned:  Christians.  Usually of the orthodox pedigree.

Hmm…

If you are a church member today in good standing, I dare you to try espousing the virtue, or even the mere possibility of virtue, of any other doctrine or theology, be it from another religion altogether or merely a deviation from orthodox Biblical interpretation.  Suggest even a mild stray from traditional thinking, like, say, questioning the moral necessity and efficacy of abstaining from profanity, and watch what happens nine times out of ten.  You’ll be met with polite but utterly categorical disregard, and tacitly denounced as nurturing abject wickedness.  You’ll soon be tagged as a likely insurrectionist…one to watch out for, and there will be a hyper-vigilant monitoring of your presence and influence.  Now, dare stray from a truly cornerstone doctrinal issue, like the Trinity or Pedestination or Penal Substitution, and all but the very slimmest pretense of civility goes right out the stained-glass window.  You will be explicitly denounced as an emissary of Satan…an apostate of the worst kind.  Overnight those “Christians” who were once so emphatically and eternally devoted to you and your family become, effectively, total strangers.  You may retain a smattering of “rebels” who are willing to risk eternal damnation to send you an email now and again, or to get together for coffee, but make no mistake, the vast majority of your “church family” will have held court without you, denounced you as a traitor and a wolf, and will divorce you from their reality entirely.  You are dead to them.  No, worse than that.  You are never-born to them.

Don’t believe me?  Go ahead and try.  See what happens.  I dare you.  Walk up to your nearest member of the church leadership next Sunday and tell them that you have rejected the doctrine of Original Sin, Total Depravity, the Fall of Man, and/or the Trinity, as irrational and unbiblical.  When the leadership and its sycophants eventually engage you for the purposes of “gentle correction”, explain to them that none of those terms appear in Scripture, ever, anywhere.  When they mellifluously tell you that the spirt of scripture clearly implies that such doctrines be absolutely true, ask them when “clearly implies” stopped being an oxymoron, and where scripture implies that one also means three, God controls all things yet doesn’t control them because man is still responsible for his sin and sin nature, or that punishing the innocent for the sake of the guilty is a moral duty (with respect to Penal Substitution).

Watch what happens. After a merely ceremonious appeal to divine enlightenment followed by some rational equivocation, they’ll pull the “God’s chosen Authority” card and you’ll be banished as an imposter and interloper.  And then you will feel the stress of yet another completely irrational and unbiblical doctrine oft employed by Christians:  Excommunication.

So, yes, I find it just a little bit precious when I AM the one called “absolutist” and “unforgiving” for merely refusing to accept that “tree” also means “mailbox”.  In psychology, I believe they call that kind of thing “projection”.

*

I find it insulting and intellectually lazy when my ideas are labeled too abstruse or confusing…too full of enigmatic, circumspect rationalizations; too unwieldy for any practical use.  Just too damn hard to understand.

Okay.  Here’s a list of ideas that apparently are not too hard to understand, if you’ll indulge me.  And in this list you will see arguments and ideas I have encountered from not just Christian circles, but political and scientific as well.  And this is just a mere fraction of the conflicted ideas I have stumbled across in my attempts to get at a rationally consistent interpretation of reality.  And make no mistake, these ideas are taken very seriously by the most accomplished and prodigious intellectuals in the world, and are often also accepted wholesale as axiomatic by the vast majority of laypersons.

-Government exists to protect private property, and it obtains the resources to do so through the tax code, which takes one’s private property by force.  This is thought to be not only completely rational but many times a moral necessity!

-Libertarians want to reduce the size of government by running for office.  In other words, they intend to use the power of the government to reduce the power of government.

-God is infinite and man is finite.  This means hat the finite and the infinite co-exist.  In other words, what is infinite stops where finite begins.  In other words, “limited infinity” is a thing.

-Time and space were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang never actually happened, since it has neither a location nor an instant.

-Space is a vacuum.  Wormholes are holes in space.  In other words, there are physicists seriously considering the reality of holes inside another hole.

-We often hear the phrase “beginning of time”.  Of course, time is the beginning.  In other words, there is such a thing as the beginning of the beginning.

-Atheists don’t believe in God, and assert that the concept of God is completely irrational whilst simultaneously appealing to omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, untouchable, transcendent powers called the “Laws of Physics” which are invisible as distinct from the objects they supposedly control and create.  In other words, atheism is polytheism, soon to be monotheism once the geniuses at MIT and Cambridge get around to discovering the “answer to everything.”

-Scientists claim that the observer is a function of what he observers.  In other words, the observer observes himself from outside himself.

-Consciousness is a direct function of unconsciousness (categorically unconscious natural law).  In other words, consciousness is an “illusion”…which in this case is a euphemism for “doesn’t actually exist”.  So what exactly is it an illusion of?

-It is true to claim that absolute truth cannot be known, and that the inability of man to truly know anything absolutely is intellectually and morally meaningful to him.  In other words, its very important to know that you can’t know.

-Einstein’s theory of time travel implies that such travel is both to the future and the past,  depending ENTIRELY on the observer, making time travel so completely relative that it becomes functionally meaningless.  In other words, time travel is both possible and ABSOLUTELY irrelevant…which is to say, possible and impossible.

Now, this is what I have gleaned from that short list.  Apparently, for my philosophy to be sufficiently digested by the masses and made fit for practical employment, I must somehow find a compromise—in gentler terms…what is meant is actually a synthesis—between mutually exclusive concepts.  This will make me warm and fuzzy and comfortable and relatable and rational.

And here it seems I’ve stumbled upon yet another contradiction to add to the list.  It never seems to end.

*

All right, let us finally put away the rabbit and hat and reveal just how the logical magic trick of contradiction (often mislabeled, either deliberately or unknowingly, as “paradox”) is performed.  Humanity has for too long accepted that contradiction is a legitimately rational means of reconciling extremely complex or seemingly unresolvable concepts, or explaining observations (e.g. the wave-particle duality of light) that are not easily integrated into linguistic paradigms.  In other words, humanity has consistently revealed itself to be, in unfortunately typical fashion, intellectually lazy on the whole.  Or at least, too willing to accept intellectual insufficiency as the apogee of man’s mind.  The reason why it’s easier to “understand” contradiction as “truth” is simple:  because there’s NOTHING to understand.  And I mean literally.  To declare that A is also B makes both A and B…well, nothing.  A is also Not A; and B is also Not B.  By this methodology we get a complete vacuum of meaning…a hole in one’s consciousness instead of a truth.  The assertion that the square is also the circle is to admit that you cannot actually say which is which, and this, ultimately, only means that you have thrown up your hands and surrendered reality to…well, who knows?  You cannot say, because you’ve rejected the means by which anything is said at all.  And if you have surrendered your grip on reality by accepting even a tincture of contradiction as somehow commensurate with truth, then you have spoiled the entirety of understanding.  A pinch of leaven leavens the whole batch, so it is said, and this is true likewise of contradiction.  To claim even one contradiction as truth is to render the entirety of reality ITSELF a contradiction.

If you find my ideas too arcane and rigid, and too aggrandizing of human reason, then I humbly submit that this has nothing to do with the actual substance of my ideas and everything to do with the fact that you have become shamefully complacent in your thinking, and have compounded this error with ignorance.  That one who asserts that mutually exclusive concepts can be synthesized to form truth, or that truth is a measure of degrees, or that the key to understanding is realizing that humanity lacks sufficiency for fundamental understanding…yes, that the one who peddles this mystical, ethereal, esoteric, senseless, pseudo-spiritual bromide should suggest that I am the one whose ideas are much too far beyond the boundaries of human sensibility is exceedingly facile.  I might even say amatuerish.  If you struggle to comprehend the axiom that there can be no such thing as a square circle, then might I suggest you glance in a mirror to discover just which one of us is the real rational grifter.

And look, I get your oblique point.  Unraveling contradictions that have been accepted as axiomatic of reality and truth for often hundreds of years or more can seem exceedingly tedious, complex, full of ostensible random minutia, and just plain nonsensical.  But that this is MY fault is an accusation I refuse to accept.  I am not the one who built whole civilizations out of bullshit.  Civilization and all of its bullshit—from the Church to the State and all of the the little religious and scientific determinism bullshit in between—was already here when I got here.  And this is precisely my point.  It’s not okay to fault me, intellectually or morally, for a problem I did not create; nor is it okay to condemn me for the mess a fully ensconced contradiction makes when it is finally extracted.  Don’t blame the paramedic because the bandages get hella bloody.

END