Category Archives: General Philosophy

Does Voting Matter?: An argument for non-participation

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , ,

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

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

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

*

“Does voting really matter?”

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it.

…

…

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

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

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

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

Man qua man = the death of man

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

And therefore, according to the premise of government then…

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

And therefore…

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

Which means…

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

It doesn’t.

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

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

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

So…why vote then?

To limit government?

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

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

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

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

It’s a good question.

You decide.

Why a Plurality of Existence is Impossible

General Philosophy, Physics and Metaphysics, , ,

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

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

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

They cannot.

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

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

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

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

General Philosophy, , , , ,

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

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

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

Speaking of contradiction, note the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Philosophy, , , ,

1.

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

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

-Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.

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

How is it that one knows?

Because he is determined.

And how is it that he is determined?

Because he knows.

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

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

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

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

People, this is artifice.

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

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

3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equality, Social Justice, and the Inverse Corollary of Existence to Identity

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , , , , ,

Since existence between objects is relative–that is, movement between two or more objects in a vacuum (of space) means that depending on how an observer chooses to measure the relationship, either object at any given time can serve as the reference for said measurement–the only thing which can be said to be fundamentally equal between objects is their existence.

Now, before I go any further, and before one of my many philosophically astute readers observes and comments upon the inevitable rational dilemma involved in taking “existence” as the metaphysical primary to its logical conclusion, let me provide you with the following disclaimer:

I submit that existence isn’t actually the metaphysical irreducible–that honor is reserved for “ability”.  The ability to exist (which really has its foundation in the ability to conceptualize existence), in other words, must precede existence.  But for the purposes of this article, and to use a concept that is more readily understandable and familiar to most people, “existence” as the assumed foundational metaphysic is acceptable.  In any case, whether we assume “existence” or “ability” as the metaphysical primary does not significantly change the argument within the specific context of this article.

Moving on…

Now, what I mean by “the only thing equal is the existence of the respective objects” is merely that the being–the IS–of object A is equal to the being–the IS–of object B.  This is due to the fact that objectively, and necessarily, each object, empirically apprehended, must be said to possess absolute existence.  In other words, each object is not an amalgamation or an integration of existence and NON-existence, for this would constitute an impossible contradiction.  Because the objects exist, they cannot, by definition, NOT exist in any measure.  You cannot integrate a NOT with an IS; and since clearly each object IS, then they are by no means any value of not.  And further, because there can be no such actual thing as nothing–for nothing, by definition, cannot be something–each object must be entirely, infinitely, and categorically something.  Put another way: each object must have existence, and they must have it absolutely.  And since the existence is in equal measure absolute, or infinite, there is absolute, or infinite, equality between the two objects.

This is validated by the fact that there is no way to observe a distinction between each object’s relative and respective existence, for all we can say about existence is that it is relative, which in no way mitigates or limits existence as the absolute metaphysical primary.  (On the contrary, I would argue that in order for existence to be relative, it must be infinite…it must be absolute and limitless; and the the contradiction is only ostensible, not actual.)  The identity distinctions between objects are based upon the premise that they each possess absolute existence first, in order that they can then be defined (conceptualized) relative to one another.  In other words, existence must precede any relevant application of relativity.

To put this in simpler terms, we can say that the moon, for example, absolutely exists, and likewise the apple.  One cannot be said nor measured to exist in a greater or lesser degree than the other.  “Lesser” and “greater” are concepts which require relative distinction, which is only relevant if the objects exist first in order that distinctions, which then are relative, can be made.  In other words, the relativity of existence is predicated upon existence, itself.  And…well…at the very least, relativity and existence are corollaries.

Because of the fact that existence between objects is utterly equal to an infinite degree, any attempt to apply equality beyond the application of the truth that both object A and object B exist, and this infinitely, and therefore literally, and unambiguously and, in the literal sense, indistinctly, is a gross logical fallacy.  The reason for the logical fallacy is as follows:

The absolute existence of object A demands that it, by definition, is simultaneously absolutely not object B, and vice versa.  As object A and object B have utterly equal (even, identical, really…but that’s another, even more nuanced article) existence, they are also simultaneously infinitely distinct from one another.  What this means is that these objects are infinitely different once we concede their absolute existential equality.  A succinct way of putting it is:  as their existence is infinitely equal, their identity is infinitely distinct.   Their identity is distinct to the same infinite degree as their existence is equal.

This is why any attempt to cultivate “social justice” based upon “equality” of individuals (a contradiction, since “social” is a collectivist, not individualistic, philosophical ideology) must fail.  It is rooted in the false notion that there can be an equality of identity, and not existence.  The notion is false because it violates the Law (as postulated by myself) of Existence as Inversely Correlate to Identity:  If A is itself absolute, it is likewise and simultaneously absolutely not B.  Or, stated more abstractly:

Where A(Existence) = B(Existence), A(Identity) ≠ B(Identity)

Practically applied, what this means is fairly obvious:  I (for example) am not you and you are not me–our identities are infinitely distinct.  We are each One…we are absolutely ourselves whilst being absolutely NOT each other, which makes us infinitely individual at the most basic level: existence; and only here, at existence, is equality rationally applied to society.  And by this I mean that equality simply means that one individual in society may not deny the other individual the right of pursuing his/her own life as he/she chooses and is able as an extension of their infinite existence.   And thus this individual, distinct, existence, being  ipso facto and therefore necessary, must be both True and Good.  And therefore pursuing such existence as one chooses–also by virtue of being the only one who possesses the singular frame reference of Self, absolutely, from which to manifest his or her life, and thus CAN be the only one who can rationally choose how to manifest his/her own life–can only be considered an explicit right.  Equality cannot mean that one individual has the right to impose his own, or a collective’s, wholly abstract standard of “equality’ upon a society of individuals.  For this (irrationally and contradictory) subordinates the absolute individual to the “group”, contradicting his/her existence entirely.  Which means that instead of making individuals equal, “social equality” denies them entirely.  And once individuals are denied, there is no frame of reference for either “social” or “justice” or “equality” at all.  Once the individual is eliminated from the existence equation, there is no way to define existence in the first place.  And without existence, you have no relative relationship between people or objects; and without those, there are no distinctions.  And without distinctions, there are no definitions, no concepts, and no values.  And without definitions, concepts, and values, there is no reality.

Because I am infinitely me and infinitely not you, how we express ourselves within the environment –being an extension of our unique individual Selves–must also be infinitely different.  But to demand “society” to give us equality of resources in the hopes of fostering an equality of outcomes is logically untenable.  Giving equal amounts of resources to distinct individuals, who are distinct at the the the most basic level, their identity, cannot possibly create equality in any practical sense because equality is not about identity, and doesn’t belong to it.  It is not about how we express our utterly unique and distinct Selves upon the earth.  Rather, equality is about existence.  Or, more formally, t is about sharing the same fundamental metaphysical absolute: existence.

And how do we exist?

As individuals.

And individuality is how we apply and express ourselves upon the environment.  The way we express ourselves, practically, or socially, is via not our existence but via our identity; that is, via that  which we are as infinitely and always distinct from that which we are not.  And in the “social” sense, what we are NOT…is other people.  We are NOT, then, the GROUP.  Because if we are the group, then we are not ourselves…in which case, we loose our identity, and thus the idea of “group”, or “society”, or “justice”, or “equality” (in the false collectivist sense) becomes entirely, and ironically, irrelevant.  You cannot advocate the equality of individuals without also advocating the identity of: “individual”.  And once there are no individuals, there is nothing to make “equal”, in the social sense.  And thus, the only way to make individuals “equal” in the social sense is to destroy that which makes us equal in the real sense (the rational, efficacious, moral sense): our existence.

And this is why all forms of collectivism (e.g. fascism, communism, socialism, religious gnosticism) will always destroy humanity, and horribly, violently so.  Collectivism can never prosper humanity because it fundamentally denies the REALITY of humanity. 

Now, this is all, of course, merely the petals on the flower of metaphysics; and also, it’s really important to understand that “existence” as a metaphysical primary breaks down spectacularly once we climb several rungs deeper into the ontological discussion (but not in a way that necessarily effects the veracity of this article’s assertions or its conclusions, I submit, as I mentioned in my disclaimer, above).  Nevertheless, the discussion of absolute equality of existence as an inverse corollary to the absolute distinction of identity is helpful in analyzing the practical applications of collectivist ideologies in general, and specifically the morally defunct and ultimately humanity-razing Marxist notion of “social justice”.

 

 

The Fallacy and Futility of the Vote: Is society a function of you, or you of society? (The intransigence of the metaphysical axiom, and its necessary determinism)

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

Is the individual a direct function of the society or is society a direct function of the individual? The answer to this question will determined how a society functions, as well as the “logical conclusion” of the society with respect to the life or death of the denizens within it.  That is, depending on which format we choose, the conclusion will either be a perpetual realization of freedom and life for humanity, or humanity’s destruction.

The conclusion, you see, is inevitable; we should not waste our time trying to think of ways we might prevaricate around the necessary end to the premise.  One way or another, and sooner or later, the logical conclusion of a given premise will be realized; and in this case, the metaphysical premise will dictate the outcome, truly life or death, of the individual–of the society of individuals–which holds it.  The premises accepted and employed in a society with respect to the ontology of man is, in fact, what defines reality for him.

Never mind the specious logic of the Objectivists or the Empiricists…there is no such thing as an “objective reality OUTSIDE of man”…at least, not in the idealistic sense they describe, where the environment “outside” of human beings possesses its own self-contained definitions, purposes, and relevancy.  Another self-evident problem with the notion of “objective reality outside of man” is that it thus implicitly avers that man is not, in fact, objectively real; and by this they man that man’s consciousness is inherently subjective–not possessing the inherent capability of ascertaining the “objective truth” of the material universe “outside of him” (though they will claim otherwise–that man IS able to apprehend reality via his senses; an impossible notion given that, according to the root idea, there is an absolute distinction between reality “outside” of man and man’s conscious mind (presumably, the place where his senses end and his consciousness begins)).  Which…if you believe this, any Objectivist or Empirical assertion you hold is irrelevant by definition. If you are not objectively real, then any notion to which you ascribe has no functional bearing on, well…anything.

Contrary to this, I assert that all of reality (what is real in the meaningful, relevant sense to MAN, which is the only sense which matters, because man is, absolutely, and only, HIMSELF; for that is his context, period) is a function of how we define man.  Either man is fundamentally his own singular existential reference…meaning, your conscious awareness of SELF is the absolute and immutable frame of reference for your existence, and for all that you can claim is real (it must be real TO YOU, or it cannot be defined as real at all), or your awareness is a direct function of something “outside” of you…some other absolute and immutable frame of reference, like the “laws of physics/nature which govern”, or “God’s divine/sovereign Will/Plan”.  In the societal sense, speaking of geopolitical nation states, the immutable frame reference and compelling force is the authoritative mandate of the appointed proxies of the Collective abstraction, which may be referred to as the “common good”; the “people”; the “nation”; the “tribe”; the “country”; or some social demographic (“minorities”, “disadvantaged”, “business elite”, “aristocracy”, “middle class”, “workers”, etc.).

Every person has, I submit, in his or her mind, already conceded the metaphysical “cause and effect” relationship in one direction or the other. Every human being who has reached awareness–who possesses the ability to articulate a distinction between himself and his surroundings–has embraced either the idea of the individual as a function of the group/collective/society or the the group/collective/society as a function of the individual.  Another way of stating it, is that every individual has conceded to the idea that he or she is a direct extension of his/her surroundings–his/her group affiliation (and these affiliations can be defined and categorized in many ways, but in this case, I mean “society”, or “nation”, etc.) or vice versa.

The ostensible, and completely spurious compromises people make as they integrate the mutually exclusive dichotomy (SELF vs. Collective Society) are nothing more that equivocations upon the inherent and necessary contradictions present as individuals attempt existence within the social structures of a collection of human beings all governed by a central ruling authority which possesses, above all, and at its very irreducible foundation, the source of all its power, a monopoly of force (violence) to compel individual outcomes in service to what it propagandizes as “the good of the many”, but what is in reality simply its own power and wealth.  Because, you see, in reality there can be nothing else to which the monopolizers of force can compel the citizens.  Its all about the logical and unavoidable conclusion, the idea of which I began the article, proceeding from the metaphysical/ontological premise: “what is man?”.  I will explain this in greater detail later in the article.

*

Both the fundamental individualist and the fundamental collectivist will entertain various contradictions in a lifelong, but futile, effort to avoid the inevitable destruction of a society ruled by a government intent on serving the “common good”, which is purely an abstraction and does not actually exist in any material or effectual sense, which is why such a government must eventually destroy the very individual citizens it claims to represent.  For example:

The law-abiding individualist will pay his taxes, obey stop lights even when there is no one else around, consent to warrant-less inspections and interrogations at sobriety, immigration, and public safety checkpoints; he will vote for his rulers in an ostensible display of democratic “freedom”, applauding this brazenly collectivist activity as a patriotic obligation to which all Americans are bound in order to honor the altruistic sacrifice of the Founding Fathers.  He will pledge allegiance to an anthropomorphized rectangular piece of cloth and dye, asserting irrationally that it somehow has a distinct and inherent value apart from his own individual presence in society, not understanding or not admitting that any such symbol only has meaning insofar as individuals find perpetual and absolute value to and for themselves in the society it represents, and that it literally has no relevancy beyond this.  He will consent to being pressed into military service for the sake of protecting his “nation” as though the nation has any value for him once its rulers demand that he kill another human being in service to it, or to openly and actively support those who do, under threat of violence (incarceration, seizure of property).   He will fund schools for the masses because he accepts that it is in the best interest of “society” if its “individual” citizens–again, ignoring the contradiction–are educated so that they, collectively, can compete with the rest of the geopolitical collectives of the world.  He will say “yes” when asked if he is an American, or a Unites States citizen, when crossing borders, as though such information is fundamentally relevant to anything at all except the irrelevant and irrational idea of abstraction (society/country/nation) as reality—as though being a direct function of a group does anything but contradict his own unique and distinctive existence.  Yes, the individualist will do all of these things because that’s what a good, law-abiding individual does.  He concedes the contradiction that being a good individual means complying with the strictures of society as dictated by the purveyors of force  (rulers) who compel him in service to the “community”; which he also understands (and yet implicitly denies), being an individualist, has no relevance beyond his own unique existential frame of reference: himSELF.

The collectivist, on the other hand, will also speak of the virtues of the vote. The good, modern American neo-Marxist known as today’s democratic party affiliate, will vehemently deny that our society cannot possibly be totalitarian, you see, or inherently destructive to the very essence of individuality, because each one of us gets a vote.  Each one of us gets a “say”.  Indeed this Marxist will even declare that it is our individual duty to vote our “free” conscience for those who will rule the collective, and force us into compliance with its mandates which are dictated by the monopolizers of force, even though at the very root metaphysical/ontological level, the collective can have no actual interest in the individual beyond their forced sacrifice to its abstract ideal.  And because we have the “right” to vote, and the “right” to speak, there must be, so the loose logic goes, inherent deference to the individual amongst the collective of society.

The collectivist will respect the rights of everyone to choose their own way, to employ their own expressions of morality and truth, so long as it poses no relevant or substantive affront to the epistemological and moral plumb line of the “common good”, as he arbitrarily defines it  He will tell us that each one of us can do whatever we want, and assemble and discourse with whomever we choose, so long as we don’t “discriminate” against whatever societal group the collectivist has deemed “special” or “protected” according to their subjective criteria.  In America the special groups which are seen as those to which a forced deference must be compelled by the ruling authorities have ranged anywhere from the business elites and early American aristocrats, military service members, and various Christian denominations, to the poor, the racial minorities, various non-Christian religious groups, and non-hetero sexual orientations.  And yet the collectivist either does not see or willfully ignores the irony and contradiction which says that one has a right to assemble and discourse and exchange value with anyone they choose and yet may not discriminate, as if there is no equivalency between the freedom to assemble and freedom to discriminate.

The collectivist will extol the virtues of the middle-class Main Street shop owner and then in the same breath will decry that shop owner when he or she will not serve, with his own time and his own property, members of some arbitrary “protected” class, and will demand government violence for the purposes of compelling that individual shop owner, with his or her “rights” of assembly and affiliation, into compliance with the collectivist “moral standard”.

The collectivist (even a “libertarian” one) will make overtures to the rights of individuals to worship as they choose, and yet will cry for the blood and incarceration of government workers who refuse to comply with a given demand that they affiliate, through their government post, with this group or that because it violates their religious conscience.  And instead of asking the more important and relevant question of why a government employee is in the position of having to violate his or her religious conscience in the first place (as though government has any rational business being involved in any relationship between individuals where no direct violations of human beings are occurring) they will cheer when violence is meted out against the individual who dares oppose the collective will.

But none of these equivocations, from either the individualist or the collectivist, unravel or parse the fundamental metaphysic involved in the root premise.  And this is because there is no such thing as compromise between, or an integration/intersection of, the ideas that man is SELF and man GROUP.  There is no middle ground.  There is no vacuum of space which separates you, the individual, and society.  One is a direct and uninterrupted function of the other. Period.  Any attempt to reconcile them practically will always result in the destruction of humanity, because once you compromise the individual metaphysic, you have no choice in the end but to compromise the individual himself.  There is no other outcome.  It makes no difference how much you desire or plead for there to be another outcome; how much you dream, or demand it.  Once you have chosen your premise, there are no other choices possible with respect to the necessary existential conclusion.  If man is not himself, he is nothing…he is not, and he is dead.  All will and choice is, from that moment on, fundamentally irrelevant.  A metaphysical, ontological premise will NOT be denied its conclusion.  It does not matter what you think or do or say or how hard you work.  Once you’ve conceded the irreducible, there is nowhere else to go except where it will lead you.  The premise you concede about what you are at your foundation determines your end.  You get either death or life.  And that, as they say, is that. The only way to avoid the necessary end of one irreducible premise is to concede its rank and polar opposite.

If you are SELF, then SELF is what you will reap.  You will reap the necessary reality of the singular, irreducible context and standard of truth and morality:  YOUR infinite existential, metaphysically singular context of YOU, alone.  Infinite and forever.  Life everlasting.  If you are NOT SELF…if you are “group”, then you will be sacrificed.  Death everlasting, starting from the very moment you decide that you are not, in fact, you at all.  That you, as an extension of the group, cannot possibly have a frame of reference for anything, because you are material and group is abstract, and there is no way for one to experience existence from the context of the other, because they are entirely exclusive.  Your only obligation is to become empty, so that what you “really” are–the collective–will “live”.  Whatever that means. Because, well…you cannot really know, can you?

*

The foundation of human conceptual thinking is, I submit, comprised of two basic categories.  The first is the material concept, and this category is comprised of the visceral “objects” humans can sense…the physical environment/universe, if you will, or what some empiricists, rationalists, and Objectivists might call “objective reality”.  To an extent, this is a satisfactory description.  It’s a bit narrow and lacks depth in terms of the metaphysics, but it will do fine for our purposes here.  Concepts in this category would be your concrete nouns:  tree, cat, car, skyscraper, Huey Lewis and the News, etc. The other category is comprised of the abstract concepts…those things which are not visceral, and cannot be observed.  Blue, left, fear, joy…as well as other, more complicated and arcane abstractions, such as mathematics, metaphysics, politics, public relations, doctrine, and the laws of nature.

With respect to “collectives” what is too often and falsely assumed is that the “collective” or the “masses” or the “group” is a material concept to be found in objective reality when in fact it is an abstraction.  Government, the Church, the Nation, the Race, the Workers, the People, Society…these are not material, but abstract. They are immaterial.

In other words, there is no such thing as a group, per se.  The nation or the community or society doesn’t actually exist in material reality.  The “people”, “the community”, “society”, the “Church body”, doesn’t take up space.  It doesn’t have volume.  It cannot be touched or felt or seen.  It isn’t there, is the point.  What I am saying is that once you remove the individual human being, there can be no group…no collective.  For the individual person is the only actual, physical component of any group.  There is no such thing as a “society” which doesn’t begin and end with the individual.  Subtract the person, and the collective becomes meaningless, and therefore, impossible.

Thus, all collectives are a direct function of the individual, not the other way around.  So, to ask an individual to make concessions to the group is to ask what is material…or, better said, to ask what is real to sacrifice itself to what is not.  To ask an individual to provide (often at gunpoint by the monopolizers of force) a measure of his property to a group of “others”, based upon a collective commonality that cannot be exactly and equally applied to each individual within that collective, is inherently irrational and must therefore be destructive.  It is impossible, you see, because there can be no collective equality when the collective is comprised of metaphysically and ontologically distinct, and infinitely so, individuals.   What I mean by this is you cannot make equal that which is infinitely and singularly distinct and fully of itself.  Each human being is distinctly himself, at the metaphysical level.  At this level–at the level of being–there is no connection to another.  It simply does not exist.  Each person is utterly themselves; the beginning and end of their own essence; existence; being; IS.  The idea of “equality” amongst group members then is impossible because it cannot be rationally applied.  You cannot apply an equality of individuals without violating the singularly individual metaphysic.  And this violation occurs when the collective metaphysic is applied to individuals, making them a function of GROUP, not of SELF. And once this is done we are forced to concede that the individual person is not an individual at all, but is in fact a direct function of the abstraction of “group” (“nation”, “society”, “race”, “community”, etc.).  With respect to your individuality then, what is declared “real” is the abstraction of GROUP.  What is not empirical–what cannot be sensed; what is not, in fact, physical, becomes the “real” truth, and you, as a physical, singular self-aware agent, becomes the abstraction.  The illusion.  The absolute servant of the collective “reality”.  He who thinks and observes himself as one, is not, in fact, himself.  He is everyone.  He is all.  He is society.

But how can it be rationally argued that the collective is not in fact fundamentally grounded in the individual? How does the collective exist once the individual is removed?  How is it possible to arrive at EVERYONE from a metaphysic which demands the existence of NO ONE (no individual)?  How do you get a group of people when the most basic and smallest component from which that group is derived is eradicated from the existential equation?

Well…you don’t.  It is impossible, full stop.  And this is why ALL nations, governed by a central authority responsible for governing on behalf of the “people”, and “society”, and the “common good”, no matter how ostensibly benign, no matter how rationally sound its Constitution may seem, no matter how benevolent its intentions are, must inevitably dissolve into the oppression, exploitation, and eventual murder of the individual on a mass scale.  Once each one of us becomes a metaphysical function of an abstraction like “society”, there can be no society at all.  We all must be sacrificed to society, because our self-evident individual material presence, and our undeniable singular conscious frame of reference–the existential reference of SELF–becomes a rank offense and affront to the collective of society.  The abstraction is absolute.  IT, not the individual, is the infinite metaphysical singularity.  Only it gets to exist, for “real”.  And as long as there are individuals out there saying the word “I”, its fullness cannot be realized.  Humanity must be destroyed so that the fullness of the “truth” of the collective can be realized.

*

A common refrain from those with left leaning politics is the idea that “without society” the individual would and could not be in a position to acquire the wealth and assets which they wish to commandeer at gunpoint (via the State’s monopoly of force (violence)) in order to redistribute it to the arbitrarily selected “special” classes.  This argument is nothing more than an appeal to the Marxist collectivist metaphysic I discussed above.  You see, the basis of this argument is the idea that the individual needs society–that it is the abstraction which allows for the existence, survival, and prosperity of the actual, physical, visceral individual human being.  Of course this is so obviously fallacious it is a wonder this argument gets any traction at all. But nevertheless, and unfortunately, it does.

Since the collective, or “society”, is impossible and irrelevant without its requisite smallest component–the individual–it is the apogee of sophism and irrationality to argue that somehow the individual, who rightly and reasonably employs the apparatus of “society” to his own benefit, affirmation, protection, and prosperity, is somehow, in turn, obligated to sacrifice himself to society…an idea which could have no relevance and certainly no practical application absent his existence.  Nevertheless this is the socialist/Marxist/collectivist ideology rooted in the requisite collectivist metaphysic.  It is the idea that somehow, that which cannot exist without the individual, and is in fact a direct and categorical product of the individual’s own mind, has some right to demand of its creator an ablution and an offering.

Obviously what is an abstraction, “the people”, or “society”, cannot possibly demand penance and property from the individual human being, and this is why the abstraction’s proxies must act in its stead.  Whenever a politician demands that this person must be robbed of his property in service to the group, or the “greater good”, know that this property cannot in fact go to any end except the whims and contrivances of those who are using their position as the monopolizers of force to “serve” on “behalf of the group”.  Remember, “group”, be it the “poor” or “disadvantaged” or “those without healthcare”, or “minorities”, or “single moms” is an abstraction, and these merely direct derivations of the primary group abstraction, “society”, or “nation”, or the “people”, or the “country” (which is why leftist politicians always conflate forced private property redistribution to the poor as of general benefit to “society”–for the “poor” is merely a sub-collective with direct roots in  the primary collective of “nation”, or “America”…there is no actual distinction in their eyes).  What is an abstraction has no need of material goods, nor can it even be in the existential position to accept any such goods, be them labor or money.  Those rulers who represent the group as its human proxies, on the other hand, can.  And they do.  As I stated in my last article, the Collective which is represented by its human proxies, the governing authorities, is already the epitome of existential perfection.  It is already the Standard of Truth and Morality by which all else is measured.  It has no need of anything…it dictates terms.  Its only requirement is that all individuals–all who utter the word “I”–be sacrificed and consumed in service to itself.  It’s inexorable need and objective is for its infinity be absolute and unchallenged.  Its human proxies–its “leaders”, “rulers”, “governors”–exist to make that happen.  They are the “authority” which “stands in its stead”.  They are the ones who absorb the life and property of the individual because, as far as you and I are concerned, there is no difference between them and the Ideal of the Nation; the People; the Society.

But the truth is that society collapses unless the individual is free to exploit it to its own ends, and this is because “society” is an abstraction–it is not human beings; and we need to be clear about this.  Society is a direct function of the individual’s mind, devised specifically in order to make it easier for he or she to realize their individual and personal and singular existence upon the earth as they see fit.  It is individuals coming together voluntarily to exchange value for value in service to individual life and well being; to ensure that each one of us manifests ourSELVES upon our world and our universe as we see fit, and of, by, and to ourselves.  Society belongs to us, we do not belong to it.  The Race, the Workers, the Nation, the Party, the Church, belong to us.  It is of us, and for us…individually; alone and unique and equally unequal.  The individual must always and only gain from his affiliation with and presence within society according to his own standards–his own ideas, his own objectives, his own goals, his own desires, his own purposes, his own schedule, and no one else’s.  Always and utterly, every minute and every second of every day, forever.  There can be NO loss for the individual, ever, to “society” in his eyes.  Because once that happens, its all over.  The minute man is compelled to lose something–to suffer a net and un-reimbursed debt–in service to “society” the metaphysics are flipped completely on their heads.  Once man is asked to give without any gain to the “group”, he has become a function of the abstraction.  What is has become what is not.  You are no longer you.  You, and all you know, are a lie.

Man is Self, and “society” is his abstraction he must use for his own individual, perpetual gain, as he desires and defines for himself.  Any other understanding or application of the idea of “society” is a rank corruption.  It is a lie, and it can do nothing and will inevitably do nothing else but erase its human progenitors from the face of the earth.

The Fallacy and Futility of the Vote, Part One: American Democracy and Its Inherent Destructive Collectivism (There is no escape from the logical conclusion of an accepted premise)

Calvinism/Philosophy, Epistemology, General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , , , , , ,

If you are like me, you cannot even bring yourself to suffer a single minute of a single political “debate” because you understand that the nature of such showmanship is purely obfuscation.  And it need not even be conscious…it simply is by the nature of the collectivist philosophy which underwrites the notion of a central governing authority.  Which, by its very nature, appeals to its AUTHORITY to act “on behalf of the people”.

Ah, but since the “people” is, and can only be, referred to in the collectivist sense–because no democratic government claims to represent the interest of just a person (“you” or “me”, individually)–then acting on behalf of the “people” (collective) really means acting on behalf of itself.  Why?  Well, because it alone possesses the mandate of force necessary to compel the group’s collective will upon society…which is to say, the environment.  And this mandate has been given to it by the collective, by the majority group, and not by any one person, or one citizen, in general.  Because any ONE person is, by definition, too small a minority to “elect” that which is being tasked with perpetuating upon the environment the will of the group.  It’s not your will, or any individual will, it cares about, because no such individual will has anything to do with a government that is elected by the people in the collectivist sense, which is the only sense the term “people” can have when we start talking about government…which is the Authority which acts on behalf of Group; and there is no such thing as a group of one. That is an obvious contradiction in terms.  This means that such an Authority can never act in service to YOU, yourSELF.

Your only hope then, once you’ve acceded to this governing Authority, is that it acts is in such a way that you happen agree with its actions; or that you are un-offended by them.  But by no means can you assume that the government acts on behalf of YOU as an individual, since it does not recognize YOU, individually, but only the collective it represents–which, being an abstraction, has nothing actually to do with YOU in the ontological sense at all. To vote then for a government to rule on behalf of the collective, which you as an individual must then by definition be completely and perpetually at metaphysical odds with, presents a very dangerous and intransigent existential dilemma.  You have, by conceding to the premise that man is, metaphysically (at the very irreducible heart of being) a function of the group, abdicated your ownership of Self; and moreover, you have abdicated the REALITY of Self.  You have denied your own fundamental material and ontological and self-evident Truth in favor of an abstraction.  You have rejected your own ability to interpret reality for the impostor of reality given to you by those called to rule you on behalf of the “people”, or  “society”, or the the “workers”, or the “disadvantaged”, or the “nation”, or the “kingdom”, or the “church”, or the “common good”.  You have willingly placed yourself inside the iron maiden of existential entrapment and have assumed as “truth” and as “benevolent” and as “moral” the idea that you, as an individual, are entirely insufficient to life.  You have agreed that you no longer get to be, in fact, you.

*

At any rate, since these politicians are vying for the job of ruling you, it seems odd that they would need to, fundamentally or relevantly, procure your permission for such a position.  You see, being ruled is, in fact, the polar opposite of being asked.  If you are asked, you can say no.  If you are ruled…well.  Try telling the IRS that you no longer permit them to draw taxes from your wages; try telling the politicians in Chicago that the gun on you hip is moral and justified because you simply chose to opt out of the article of city law which prohibits such items on your person.  Go ahead and see what happens when you try to “opt out” of the government you get to “freely” vote for; you get to “freely” choose; which “represents” “you”.  I’ll be sure to write you in prison; maybe send you a carton of cigarettes to barter for a week of chastity.  Or to smoke afterwards, whatever suits the situation.

To freely vote to be ruled is a contradiction in terms.  This is patently obvious.  Even if you assume that you have some say in how you are to be ruled (you don’t, if you are being rationally consistent to the idea of a governing authority which acts on behalf of the group), the fact is that since you cannot opt out and still be recognized as a free, legitimate, actual, relevant, moral, and equally ontologically valid self-aware being, voting to be ruled according to the ideas of the COLLECTIVE, even if you happen to agree with them, still must subordinate your individual identity to the identity of the group.  And since the group’s identity can only be manifest by the authorities “elected” to enforce it (that is, to make it “real”; that is, to manifest the group”s identity on reality; that is, to define reality), it is NEVER truly your will which is being expressed and rendered, but the collective’s.  And the logical conclusion of this is that the individual MUST be subordinated to the collective will.  And this cannot be done voluntarily because the individual cannot, by definition, from his singular frame of reference (his individual metaphysic) apprehend the reality of the collective.  Reality is a function of the collective, not the individual.  And those tasked with rendering reality are the proxies of the group, and no one else.  And those proxies are the rulers.  And rulers rule by authority, and authority is force, and force is violence.  Period.  Full stop.  And their authority is a direct function of the abstraction of the Collective, to enforce Collective Will UPON individuals, since it cannot enforce it upon the Collective, itself being a direct function of it.  The Collective and its ruling Authority are, in effect, one and the same.  They are corollaries.  They are sympatico.  It is not then the Collective which needs ruling, it is the individual.  The Collective is ALREADY the epitome of perfection.  It has no need to be ruled; it only has need to RULE.  And what does it rule?

You.

And you don’t see the destruction bearing down on you like a rolling thunderstorm just over the horizon because you are too busy worrying about who to vote for, and cheering the idea of “government of and by the people” as though its some kind of rational tribute to liberty.   But here’s the truth.  There is no “people”.  There is only you, and me, and he and she.  And we are not a collective, we simply are Self.  To vote to be ruled by a government committed to the electoral outcomes of a collective is to deny your very nature as a being of One.

And just how long do you think it takes before those in power recognize this dynamic, and realize that the collectivist philosophy to which they (and most of the citizens they “represent”) subscribe must place an insurmountable barrier between the individual and the collective which they have been called to represent?  Just how long do you think it takes them to realize thus that the individual citizen cannot possibly have any relevant or legitimate any say in the governing of the collective, be it through voting or any other means, because he is by definition contradictory to the GROUP?  Well, a casual glance at history will reveal the inexorable slide of every nation in every continent on the face of earth into the smoldering ruins of collectivist ideology (socialism, Marxism, fascism, feudalism, theocracies, monarchism, even democracies like, say…America). History would seem, then, to indicate that it takes very little time at all.  In fact, in my opinion, I’d say it takes on average less than two years after the formation of any society ruled by a central governing body before anything but an illusion of “representative” government, “elected” and doing the “will of the [individual] people”, remains.  And maybe even less than that.

*

Above, when I mentioned political debates at the very beginning of this essay you’ll have noticed that “debate” is in quotes.  This is because, to me, political debate is more like a grand advertisement for a product I don’t really need (a centralized juggernaut of force) but which I’m told I must have if I want to “fit in”.  And in this case “fit in”, means to possess an adequacy to my own existence.  In other words, if I don’t have some massive central governing apparatus with all its requisite leaders and rulers to define reality for me (e.g. tell me what to eat, to drink, to drive, to smoke (or not), who I can marry, when my kids are “properly educated”, and by what method, etc.), then I am doomed to death–the product of my inherent depravity.  In the religious sense, depravity means that I am the abstraction of evil in its visceral, material incarnation, and thus can do no good except I that am compelled by threats and force by God’s ministerial proxies “standing in His stead”.  In the political/governmental sense, my depravity is summed up by the generally unspoken but almost universally accepted notion that: Man MUST be governed; for without the collective (the group), led by its elected officials (the arbiters of the collective’s authority, which simply means that they rule, ultimately, by force) man cannot hope to survive.

The simpler translation of this is:  as an individual man does not possess the inherent tools to exist.  He needs the collective; and the collective, being purely an abstraction (because individual human beings are the only material, tangible, and visceral components of ANY group), needs its human rulers to manifest its authority (force) to regulate society (to define collective “reality”) in material reality in order that the infinitely depraved individual can survive.

Oh, what irony we live with!  The logical conclusion of this is: we must destroy the individual’s identity entirely in order that the individual may live. The individual doesn’t actually exist (and fundamentally cannot exist) because he possesses no relevancy to reality except that he be sacrificed to the Collective, in order to (ironically, and contrarily) ensure his survival.  For remember, the assumption in a democracy, though it is not openly admitted as such, is that man must be governed; thus, he cannot by nature provide any relevancy to reality because he is insufficient to his own existence as an individual.  Reality, you see, must be rendered only by the authority of the collective; because, again, it is impossible that the individual can render it because the individual, left to himself, MUST die off.

In fact, man’s death as an individual is so assured that one cannot make an argument that man as an individual can even be born at all.  For his insufficiency to existence is an infinite product of his very root nature; it is infinite ontological depravity; infinite existential insufficiency.  And because of this, it isn’t possible that man can be rationally considered as having any innate ability to be born as an individual AT ALL; since individuality and existence are, according to the operative collectivist philosophy, mutually exclusive. There is no birth into existence for that which is infinitely insufficient to existence.  There is no birth into existence for that which is infinitely unable to exist in the first place.

In other words, the collectivist metaphysic (and the root of all collectivist economic philosophies (socialism, Marxism, fascism, democracy even, dare I say)) demands, horrifically, that the real “abstraction”–the real “illusion”, is the individual.  The only “true reality” is the collective, which, through its agents of authority–rulers, leaders, officials, etc.– subordinate the abstract individual to the collective reality.  What YOU as an individual sense…what you as an individual claim to “know” from the singular existential frame of reference of SELF, is a lie.  Or an illusion.  Or a dream.  You have no say about reality because you, alone, individually, cannot possibly grasp reality by nature.  Your sole responsibility then is to subordinate yourself to the collective; or, more precisely, to those whom the collective has “called”  in order to meet you in your illusion–the individual human “authorities” which have been “elected”, or “appointed” or “called” or “divinely established”, or whatever, who have the human “form” you can recognize in your delusion.  And the reality is that all forms of such authority are ultimately rooted in force (violence) because, in your illusion and your infinite individual state of depravity, you cannot be trusted to actually ACT of your own volition in service to the “truth” of the collective.  For you, being infinitely depraved as a product of your infinite individual existence have no frame of reference for the understanding necessary to exercise volitional obedience.  So, even though ostensibly it looks as if your rulers are reasoning with you, and willing to reason, and entreating your vote, this is purely for show, whether they consciously know it or not.  Reason is utterly irrelevant when you have no choice but to obey.  Once they are elected, you either obey their collective mandates, or you, at best and if you are lucky, will find yourself deprived of the lion’s share of your material possessions.  In the end, however, the ultimate conclusion of such a system is always much, much worse, as history bears witness.   The sacrifice of the individual to the collective–which really means its human governing proxies–always becomes literal when all is finally said and done.

Take a long, pensive gaze at the dusky horizons of the past…look upon the smoldering civilizations littered across the crimson wastelands of human collectivist history.  It is always real blood spilled when those in power finally wake up and realize that there is only one “perfect” way to go about manifesting the “truth” of their “calling”.

How Does The Totally Depraved Person “Invite” or “Permit” the Counsel of the Divine Pastoral Authority?: Spiritual Marxism Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal, Part 16

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

“Or maybe you’ve watched a friend make an ill-advised purchasing decision.  It’s amazing how we can have such clear insight into the poor choices of our friends and family members.  If you’re connected to other people, there’s a good chance somebody has equally clear insight into implications of the decisions you’re faced with.  The only way to benefit from their clear thinking–the only way to avoid the deceitfulness of sin–is to invite their input…

We must understand that solid commitments and deep convictions just aren’t enough…  Who, outside of your family, has permission to talk to you and challenge you, if need be, about the things going on in your life?  Who’s close enough to warn you if you begin to drift?”

(Community:  Your pathway to progress, pp. 33, 34. North Point Ministries, 2008)

Notice the irony implicit in the use of these words…the ones I’ve put into bold print above:  “invite”, “permission”.

Do you see it?

Not yet?  Okay, let me give you another hint.

“–the only way to avoid the deceitfulness of sin–is to invite their input.”

Do you see it now?

Well, certainly some of you do.  For those of you who do not, don’t feel bad.  It’s really not a measure of your perceptive capabilities, nor your intellect.  It’s more a measure of how these spiritual Marxists excel at deception, which is the modern currency with which they buy their followers.  It has taken me years to develop my skills at spotting the fly in the ointment from a mile away, and your erudition will develop as well, in due time.  And once you see it…well, you will not be able to un-see it.  You will be called a skeptic, a doubter, a conspiracy theorist, overreacting, presumptive, and paranoid.  But what you’ll really be is smart.  What you’ll really be is someone who they can no longer exploit in service to there own interminable worldly appetites.

Notice the incongruent and contradictory relationship between a metaphysic which declares that you are, at the very fundamental root of your nature–your being, your existential seed–utterly insufficient to existence to the point where if you are not fully integrated into the Christian Marxist hive (the “church”) you can make no claim to existence at all, nor to the idea that you must “invite” or “give permission” to the collective (“the body”; “the nation”, the “race”, the “tribe”, the “people”, the “workers”…but in this case, specifically, the divine proxy known as the “small group”, which answers directly to the North Point Ministry autocracy known as the Pastorate, ruled by the Protestant Pope, the “Senior Pastor”).

Understand that you cannot make a claim that any one in possession of a “sinful nature”, which is the full sum and substance of his existence, has any natural right to invite people who MUST intervene in order to compel integration to the the group for that person’s “own good” (remember, according to the text I quoted, other people (the collective) inserting themselves into your life is the ONLY way to avoid the deceitfulness of sin).

Here’s a thought:  In order for one to give permission to the group to perform the daily ritual of intervention one must possess the inherent intellectual and psychological faculties necessary to determine truth from fiction, and good from evil.  But notice also how impossible this must be for someone whose nature is TOTALLY Depraved.  Who functions, above all else, always and entirely according to a “sin nature” which is utterly destructive to the individual, to the point where any rational “existence” by such an entirely debauched individual is fully impossible.

You see, since your depravity is infinite and absolute, there is no way to define SELF as somehow distinct from it.  This being the case, there can be no one who is capable of of the kind of intellectual and psychological attributes necessary to discern reality enough in order to make an invitation or to give permission to anything, or anyone, regarding any doctrine whatsoever.  Since you are entirely a function of your depravity, you must be blind to whatever “benevolent” reality North Point Ministries is so arrogantly and deceptively and so fucking blithely asking you to choose to “invite” into your life.   And this is because you, being entirely a function of your absolute depravity, cannot be distinct from it. Which means there is no way for you to discern reality at all, in order to make a value judgement concerning which group you “invite” to speak to you, and to ensure your safe travels upon the road of righteousness…a road which you must inevitably miss unless you “invite” the collective’s leadership to lead (force) you upon it.  But to be able to invite–to be able to give permission–is to be able to see the road to salvation for yourself.  But it is clear by the appeals to the metaphysic of man’s total depravity that this is simply not possible.  According to the doctrine of Total Depravity, and the adherence to the idea of the abject Fall of Man, and the categorical acceptance of man’s Original Sin which thus MUST determine man to self-destruction in the form of infinite and interminable torment in hell fire, man is no more inherently capable of seeing the road to salvation than he is of flying to the moon by flapping his arms.  In which case to “invite” the Small Group to come along and assist him in traversing it is obviously and demonstrably impossible.

Make no mistake then, the words “invite” and “permission” are simply there as tools used by these tyrants to diffuse skepticism.  To deceive people into thinking that there is some kind of cooperation being effected here.  This is the kind of conscious and intentional deception these evil institutions use to coerce otherwise intelligent men and women into surrendering the entirety of their lives and resources to the wolves who in past centuries and in past societies would have skipped the sophism and propaganda altogether and simply used threats of violence to compel people into the pews, and murdered those who refused or dissented.

*

“To invite their input”.

Listen, diplomatic terms like “invite” imply that one by natural right has full possession of his life and property.  Indeed, it implies that the only means by which anyone can legitimately seek to influence you–and the purposes and promises and objectives you have set for yourself by your own ideas and your own volition as an autonomous, fully sentient and fully competent agent–is to seek your permission; to entreat your invitation.  And this not by sophism or by deceit, but by appealing to your sense of Self…that is, by appealing to the idea that what they are proposing is that which brings value to the realization of your own existence, in a way which ultimately benefits YOU.  And by YOU–by Self–I mean one who is fully capable to his or her own existence, by nature, and thus possesses fully the means by which to discern fact from fiction, and therefore good from evil; one who employs reason as a means by which to promote the Self, which is the only rational context of existence, and that promoting Self, then, is the very definition of morality.

A casual examination of the doctrines of Protestant Orthodoxy reveals that this definition of Self utterly incompatible with the religion.  There is simply no fucking way any professing Protestant in good standing can with a straight face describe man’s Self the way I have done so above.  The metaphysic of man as an agent fully aware of himself, fully in possession of epistemological faculties resulting in a right and good discernment of truth, could not be further from the metaphysic of Christianity today, which makes no pretense of any notion of man which does not fully condemn him to abject self-annihilation to the point of rendering man fully non-existent even upon his birth, due to his categorical and singular fusion with the abstractions of “depravity”, “evil”, “fallen”, “insufficient”, “unable”, and “unholy”. In other words, the metaphysical presumptions endemic and categorical in Christianity today (and every day since Augustine, for that matter), which guide the entirety of the doctrinal cannon espoused in churches across the globe scream in bloodcurdling fashion a contradiction to the notion that anyone has any right, or any rational, psychological, or intellectual means, to “invite” or “give permission”.

I mean, the absurdity of it all makes one question whether or not he is awake or still in bed dreaming.

Nevertheless, this is what is touted.  And this is what people accept as reasonable.  This is what Christians pass off as “truth”.

God help us.

Look, it’s very simple.  The church today all but announces with every worship song and in every sermon in every church in America that you have no motherfucking right to self ownership. And that the sum and substance of all evil is to be found in the presumption that man is somehow an actual sentient and fully capable agent, fully divested with and fully sufficient to self ownership and thus possesses the necessary right to his own life…to do with it what he or she pleases in whatever fashion he or she decides, and that since in the name of rational consistency, ALL men and women must have this very same natural right, there can be no such thing as the idea that rationally and morally working out one’s existence can somehow violate the right of another human being to manifest his or her own existence; and that this, and nothing else, is the rational means to both individual existence, and the co-existence of individuals with other individuals.

No.  The church today will die, literally and figuratively, upon this hill:  that existence is fully a function of a metaphysic contrary to self-ownership and the sufficiency to one’s own existence, and that without the FORCE (the violent coercion) by those men who don title’s such as “Minister” or “Pastor” or “Father” and appoint themselves as divine proxies and then proceed to demand that the laity make no practical distinction between proxy and Deity, there can be no such thing as a human race at all.

So know this:

When they say “invite”, they mean they will invite themselves.

When they say “permission”, they mean they will permit themselves.

They will help themselves to a full portion of your life and property, because that, by their own doctrine, is their divine right.  And whatever you want?  Whatever you decide on your own behalf?

Doesn’t exist.

Truth Can Never Serve Under the Auspices of Authority

General Philosophy, , , ,

Read the title to this essay one more time.

I asked you to do this because it is very important to understand; and it is also important to understand that for all the words of this essay, it really is that simple, and it really does come back to that basic point.

Truth can never serve under the auspices of authority.

What does this mean?

Well, it means precisely what it says.  Truth does not serve, nor can it it serve, authority.  And this is because the two concepts are antipodal.  They are entirely opposite.  One, truth, is reasonable.  The other, authority, is violence…and violence by its very nature rejects reason because once it is injected there is no more discussion–for discussion ultimately becomes moot.  And once discussion is moot there is nothing left to talk about.  And naturally if there is nothing left to talk about then reason, which uses concepts, which uses words, is irrelevant.

Let me put it another way, this time in the form of a question:

Is appealing to authority the same thing as appealing to truth?

The answer of course is “no”.  And this is because truth and authority are entirely difference concepts, and, again, I aver that they are antipodal concepts.  If we attempt to integrate them we are attempting to integrate complete opposites.  To say that authority can incorporate truth on the practical level (like, say, in the neo-Reformed, neo-Calvinist Church) is like saying that left can incorporate right or that up can incorporate down on the practical level.  It’s a logical impossibility simply because one is considered the very opposite of the other.  That is, practically realized, if we empirically observe one we cannot, at the same time, observe the other from our frame of reference.

In the same way, no one can appeal to their authority whilst claiming to wield that authority by being in possession of truth.  This is because truth cannot be a function of authority, and vice versa. Just like up cannot be a function of down and left cannot be a function of right.  If someone appeals to authority to direct your behavior, he can never appeal to truth as that by which he also directs that behavior.  And the opposite of course is true.

What is authority?  Well, I have heard it said best by John Immel of SpiritualTyranny.com:  Authority is force.  And in this case, the reality is that authority is nothing more than a euphemism for threatening.  To claim authority is necessarily to threaten your life.  If you do not obey authority, you forfeit your existence.  Period.  For without that implicit (or explicit) understanding, there is no such thing as authority in the first place.  There is no appealing to authority ever, past, present, or future, anywhere in the world, where obedience to authority is optional.  If it’s optional, then the authority has no inherent right to compel outcomes in service to itself.  Or put another way, if authority is not authorized to compel outcomes in service to itself then it cannot, by definition, claim to be an authority.

What this means is that if I tell you that you must do X or Y because I am in authority over you, what I am actually saying is that I claim the right to force (violence) you to do X or Y. My authority grants me the right (and the “moral” right is implied) to compel your behavioral outcomes by force, whether you want to do them or not.  And of course, if I can force you into the behavior I desire then there is no sense in reasoning with you.  There is no sense in convincing you that you should do what I ask because its the more rational thing to do.  Again, reason, which is the formulation of truth, is beside the point.

I understand that there are those who will disagree with this assertion. However, I maintain that under the scope of someone’s authority any attempts to reason with those he claims are subordinate to his authority cannot possibly be ultimately reasonable.  Now matter how reasonable the argument may be in and of itself, once it is coupled with authority it becomes subordinate to force.  Meaning that the only reason one who is in authority over you might appeal to a rational argument in order to convince you to behave in a manner he desires is because in the present context, whatever it may be,  it is more expedient or efficacious to use ostensibly benign words and ideas to compel your behavior than physical violence or threats of violence. Thus, reason, when existing under the auspices of authority, becomes an artifice, nothing more.

Why is this?

It is because authority has only one rational practical outcome, and that is to compel obedience independent of and rendering inert the individual’s will; while reason (and its logical conclusion, truth), also has only one rational practical outcome, and that is to to affirm the morality, utility, and efficacy of the individual will as necessary to his identity as a human being and thus as necessary to human existence both individually and collectively.  Reason exists only to serve the individual–who, because he possesses an absolute and singular frame of reference for life, himSELF, must be the Standard of Truth and Morality– in order that he may manifest his own life as he chooses, to the promotion, profit, and perpetuation of that life.

The equation, for clarity’s sake, can be rendered something like this:

Authority = Force, while Force = Violence.  Violence compels outcomes, and these outcomes are then described as acts of “obedience” to the authority (though this is, in fact, merely a bastardization of the idea).   Violence to compel outcomes in service to authority necessarily disregards the will of the recipients of that violence.  Meaning that once violence is sanctioned as a moral tool to coerce an outcome, human volition is irrelevant.  You will obey or you will be forced to obey.  And if you cannot be forced, well…the only logical conclusion is your death.  If your purpose is to serve the authority whether you want to or not, simply because he is the authority, and you refuse to fulfill your purpose, the logical extension of the right to compel by violence is the right to murder those who will not be compelled, even by violence.

If your will is subordinated then to authority–which it is, otherwise authorities could not claim authority in the first place, as appeals to authority are ALWAYS and ALWAYS an appeal to force–then your very life, your very existence, which is dependent upon your own will in order to render and make choices to determine the outcomes of your life as an individual, moment by moment, becomes subject to the claimed authority.  And not just some of your life, but all of it.

It is impossible for an authority to claim the right to your will only contextually.  As a function of your very nature, at any given moment you are acting under the capacity of your own volition, and this entirely.  Or, said differently, your volitional decisions affect the entirety of your existence at any given moment.  Thus, to claim the right to compel your actions by force via an appeal to authority, and thus the right to disregard your will at a specific moment in time is to, if we take the premise to its logical conclusion, claim the right to disregard your will at all times.

I might render this idea this way:  To command your will by force is to command your mind by force.  And if your mind can be commanded by force then your cognitive assumptions by which you exist, and exist entirely, can be commanded by force.  And and since the entirety of your actions are dictated by the fundamentals of what you believe, and these fundamentals, like the rest of you, are subject to the authority, your entire life in all respects and all contexts becomes sacrificed, necessarily, to he who claims the right to compel you by his authority.  Anyone who claims the right to force the outcomes of your existence claims the right to govern, redefine, and/or eradicate your basic assumptions.  And since these assumptions are universal to your entire existence, he who claims authority in a specific context of your life must in reality be claiming it in all contexts.

Therefore, you must understand that when you place yourself, under an “authority”, you have committed functional suicide.  If someone else places you under authority, he has committed functional murder. You have ceased to exist, because your independent volition–your free will–governed by your own assumptions, has been eradicated and replaced by a proxy who claims, at his fundamental philosophical root, the right to murder you at any place, time, and for any reason.

And this is the real point of authority.  Authority is force and force is control, and that control can only be in service to that which claims ownership of you.  And to own you is to dispose of you.  Whether that dispossession is literal or figurative, as far as you are concerned, the outcome is the same:  eradication of SELF.

*

Because HE, the authority, decides you should do something, and YOU are utterly subject to his authority, you must do it, and when you are doing it you are doing it because, and for the sole reason, that he has claimed to the right to force you.  Whether you want to is beside the point.  Your choice is irrelevant, and so your will is irrelevant.  You act only–and for no other reason than because he can make you act.  For YOU are irrelevant because YOU have no actual say in the matter. Even if you agree, agreement is irrelevant when self-ownership is irrelevant.  The slave who agrees to do his master’s work because he “loves” the master is no less a slave than the slave who does so grudgingly because he fears the whips and shackles.

Willingly obeying appeals to authority it is the death of SELF in the practical, pragmatic sense; while refusing to do it is the death of SELF in the literal sense.  But the practical sense is the corollary to the literal sense.  In other words, to you, the outcome is the same:  the absence of YOU.  As I said earlier.

My friends…my readers…please, please remember this.  Anyone who claims authority over you, for any reason, cannot possibly be appealing to truth.  And if they are not appealing to truth there is no possible way they can have your interest in mind.  To accept an authority is to accept death.  Period.  Full stop.

All legitimate ideas will be ideas that are paradigms of consistently integrated concepts all affirming the right of the only legitimate Standard of Truth and Morality, the Individual SELF, to be promoted, affirmed, and prospered.  Truly there are GOOD universal mores to follow…truly there are moral actions which demand praise and imitation, and evil ones which demand justice and recompense and rejection.  But these are always a function of reason, and reason is always a function of the right of the individual to own his own life, fully and freely, full stop.  Truth, goodness, and meaningful outcomes are NEVER a function of authority.  Ever.

Whatever you believe and do, believe it and do it only because it serves you, practically, in the way in which you desire, and freely so.  Do not believe it and do it because someone threatens you with violence or pain or misery or death for not believing or doing it.  In such a case, you can be sure that there is NOTHING actually there to believe or do in the first place, because in such a scenario there is NO YOU to believe it or do it at all.

For the Collectivist, Destruction MUST Come Either Via the Individual or the State; Morality is Merely a Function of Which One Does the Destroying

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , , , , ,

Recently, on a 2016 presidential election forum on Facebook, a friend of mine, Andy, was debating the idea of government coercion as a means to effect moral outcomes in society (e.g. “equality of opportunity”…whatever that  means).  Presumably, the person with whom he was debating, Randy, leans to the left; which means that he, presumably, appeals to the supreme power (the superior ability to render destruction upon its adversaries) of the State to create conditions of opportunistic equality…again, whatever that means.  (And don’t try to figure it out; there is no real logical premise, and thus, no real logical conclusion…but whatevs).

Andy said:

“…any success that I have in this world happens IN SPITE of government programs and not because (regardless of what party implemented them).  It happens when I use my God-given creative capacity to find a way to engage in a fair exchange of value for value with another individual as a means of ensuring my own existence as a person while at the same time valuing the existence of the one with whom I am engaged in said exchange.  That is the TRUE definition of fairness and equity and morality.”

To which Randy replied:

“If only you could make that work for 375 million of us I would vote for you as president.”

Now, before I being this article, and to critique the inherent ideological and philosophical flaws in Randy’s statement (and they are prodigious), I must make a disclaimer.  First, I am neither Republican nor Democrat.  I have an official political affiliation, for voter registration purposes, with the Libertarian party; however, I would not say that I am, in the modern political sense, a true Libertarian, the reason being that libertarianism, like conservatism and liberalism, assumes, I submit, the metaphysical necessity of governing man.  That is, it assumes that since man MUST be governed, that government is the means by which man obtains his “freedom”.  The contradiction and cognitive dissonance of this idea should be patently obvious to anyone who can put one premise in front of another and validate the conclusion.  Like, if you can understand how and why 1+1=2, you can understand how and why problems which arise from State force cannot be remediated by implementing State force.  Sadly, many libertarians cannot or do not understand this.  Which is why I don’t necessarily affiliate myself philosophically with libertarianism or libertarians.  Anyway, I mention this only in the interest of disclosure.

Also, I’m not “taking Andy’s side” here, either.  While I do agree ostensibly with his comment, I did not read the the full discourse.  Thus, I am only commenting on a small excerpt of their exchange, and specifically Randy’s comment, and the vast and dreadful and destructive outcomes it implies.

Let’s read it again:

“If only you could make that [the idea of individuals exchanging value for value, privately with their own property (the product of their labor and the extension of their own existence), and according to their own perceived needs, for their own edification and progress, without the coercive violence of the state commandeering said property and redistributing it to the “less fortunate”, whatever that means] work for 375 million of us I would vote for you for president.”

Okay, let’s examine that sparkling little tidbit of Marxist tyranny and death.

For me, this would have likely been the end of the conversation.  I would have gone no further until the metaphysics were settled…and they wouldn’t have been, because metaphysical contradiction is at the very heart of Marxist sentiments like Randy’s, and in almost all cases people like Randy are simply unable to see this contradiction, let alone look beyond it and consider a more rational alternative.   So…yeah, this would have been the end of the conversation.  I would have had no more use for Randy in this context.  He’s a blind man who somehow needs to recognize that he’s blind before he can be in a position to actually want to see.  And that’s not anything any rational argument can do.  This has everything to do with a person desiring truth; and that must come from themselves.  One cannot manufacture desire in another.  It just doesn’t work.

Randy’s comment clearly reveals his root collectivist metaphysic.  And it is downright stark.  I have often remarked that all disagreements, big or small, boil down to the metaphysics.  They always boil down not to the question “Who owns man?”, as some empiricists and objectivists and other devotees of Aristotelian philosophy and its many progenies assume, but rather, “What is man?” That is, what is the root essence of human sentience?  What is that irreducible thing which makes man man?

I argue that man is Self, and self is absolute and singular, and the fundamental root of that is Ability.  And so the proper metaphysic of man is:  the Ability to be Aware of (to Conceptualize) Self–of I, Me, My–as a singularity, absolutely distinct from Environment, Other…all that is Not Self.  The rationally consistent conceptual juxtaposition/reconciliation of Self and Other is called Reason; and Reason’s Standard is Self.  Or said another way, truth and morality are a function of reason (rational consistency), and the Standard of Reason, meaning the reference by which anything is declared reasonable or not, and thus moral and good or not,  is Self.

According to Randy, man is “group”.  He is a full-on advocate of collectivist metaphysics.  Man is never himself, because that makes man an individual.  But an individual cannot by definition be responsible for the “well-being” or “equality of opportunity” (whatever that means) of 375 million people.  Expost facto, man cannot actually be Self, but “us”, or “group”.  He, insofar as we can call man a “he”, in the singular, only has any real existence if we acknowledge his utter dependence upon “other”.  Which means there is no actual dichotomy between man and his environment…but rather man, at the root of it, is his environment.  He is Self AND Other; he is Self AND Not Self.  Thus, his moral obligation, to be consistent with the collectivist metaphysic, is, contradictorily (and impossibly) to be both dependent upon and self-sacrificing to the group.  To that which is NOT Himself; because “Self” is a false metaphysic; and thus any appeals to unforced exchanging of value between individuals as the only rational and moral form of economics reads like Greek to people like Randy.  Two individuals doing private business makes about as much sense as two halves of pi.  You cannot split the root metaphysic; and the root metaphysic of man is “collective”; which means you identify with the group.

Okay, but which group?  Well, that’s an easy one.  The group is whatever group the necessary central Authority which claims to speak on behalf of the group, and to compel by violence the behavioral outcomes the group, decides that group is.  “Group” can be the “less fortunate”, which in America means anyone not white of any social status, as long as they are liberal; the “nation”, the “workers/people”, the “party”, the “body of Christ” (successfully twisting this biblical doctrine into a Marxist abomination is just about the only thing in which the modern American Institutional Church excels), and so on and so forth.

According to Randy’s metaphysics, the idea of Man as Self (as Individual) is illusory at best, criminal madness–demanding the punishment of the State–at worst.  And this punishment, by the way, is always the functional conclusion of Randy’s political and economic philosophy…and I can declare this simply because I understand his metaphysics.  Do not doubt me.  Any collectivist who decides to debate is merely engaging in a standing on ceremony…a pretense of a commitment to ideas and discourse, nothing more.  The fundamental and only true of source of “morality” is violence committed by the group’s central Authority which claims a transcendent mandate to compel outcomes of individuals in service to the group.

Boiled down, this demands the following equation: violence = morality.  Metaphysics is a function of the group which means the individual can know nothing (epistemology) because he is not actual, which means that ethics (personal interaction) must be compelled by force (violence) from the ruling Authority (Politics) which is appointed or “called” to lead the masses into right thinking and behavior to and for collective interest, which they alone define.  And this is the sum and substance of Randy’s philosophy.  Full stop.

You see, in Randy’s economic paradigm, categorically due to his collectivist metaphysic, the only moral action that any one person (who isn’t real, remember, existentially speaking…the individual metaphysic is specifically rejected) can take is sacrifice to the group.  And since, as I’ve said, Authority in this paradigm is necessary to define the existential terms of the group, sacrificing to the group means, in the context of modern American politics, sacrificing to the State.  And what this then really means is that the sum and substance of human existence is simply the arbitrary sacrifice of one group of people to another group of people.  And the reason I say “arbitrary” is because there is no actual reason involved.  There is no rational consistency.  It merely boils down to who possesses the greatest amount of power which can be translated into violence (physiological/biological, psychological, intellectual, financial) and the abject and pragmatic willingness to use it.  A willingness which is empirically verified.  For example it does no good for the United States to claim status as the world’s most militarily powerful (greatest capacity for violence by Armed Forces) nation if it does not demonstrate its power and, most importantly, its willingness to use it under circumstances it alone defines as “necessary”.  Thus: Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  (Note:  I am not criticizing the use of the A-bomb in WWII, necessarily, I’m only arguing that its use was inevitable).

*

Here is Randy’s comment, again:

“If you could make that work for 375 million of us, I’d vote for you for president.”

Now, let’s remove the pretension, faux contrition, and underlying sophistry and render this statement according to his assumptions.  Here it is, properly translated:

“If you can somehow successfully combine your own individual interests with the interests of 374,999,999 other people, I would vote for you as president.  But since this is obviously a contradiction in terms, and therefore impossible, your entire argument that men have a right to exchange the product of their own labor with other individuals according to their own, self-determined objectives and fully in service to the affirmation and promotion of themselves, is invalid.  Thus, I am fully correct and morally inviolate when I vote for people who, in keeping with my own intention and desire to force you into my subjective opinions, will point the guns of the State at you and your family in order to intimidate and threaten you into your obligation of self-sacrifice to the collective, as I have defined “sacrifice” and “collective”…that is, what I have decided is the PROPER sacrifice and PROPER collective.  And further, I submit that the collective is morally and PROPERLY defined by the context of that which I will call the “disadvantaged”, according to my own subjective definition of such a context; meaning that my definition of “disadvantaged” is purely arbitrary, being based on nothing more than my own sentiments regarding my own subjective opinions about who is in “need” and when and by what means and according to which “oppressor” and purveyor of “unfairness”, and is thus “deserving” of your property, removed from you by violence or threats of violence, making this whole discussion moot, and simply a deception to trick you into thinking that I actually employ reason, and not purely emotion and feeling, according to my subjective whims, when it comes to formulating my ideas.

Moreover, I aver that man, if left to himself, must inevitably capitulate to his inherent depraved nature (which is a sophist euphemism for “inherent and intrinsic insufficiency to his own existence”), and exploit and abuse his “weaker” (according to my subjective rendering of the concept), and “less fortunate” (according to my subjective rendering of the concept) neighbor.  And this means that without government there could exist nothing but abject and unrestrained murder, theft, and destructive chaos.  Thus, since government is necessary for the good of the group, by man’s very metaphysical insufficiency, government is perfectly withing its rights (which are absolute, and thus, not “rights” at all, but merely its own desires, no matter how capricious and paradoxical) to use force to compel the more “privileged” (according to my subjective definition of the concept), yet depraved, individual into “right” thinking and behavior.”

Of course, since this explication specifically demands a totally depraved metaphysic–which then, in order to correct the metaphysical error, which even they with all their sophistry cannot deny makes the entire existential equation unworkable–it thus demands a COLLECTIVIST metaphysic, or a “man is good (good meaning: sufficient to practical and efficacious existence) if man is group” metaphysic.  Therefore, people like Randy can never really reconcile how government, which is comprised of individuals can bring order to the inexorable chaos of individual existence; can bring peace to he who is infinitely violent; can bring “equality of opportunity” (whatever that means) to society.  Further, since ruler/citizen dichotomies are by definition unequal, I’m still waiting to hear just how there can possibly exist any real equality of opportunity, since such a society is clearly and abjectly unequal at its root, and must be, according to the irreducible assumption: man’s collectivist metaphysic.

And that is the corner into which I always back them.

You see, we can argue ancillaries and tangentials until the sun burns out, but until we can agree upon the metaphysics its all merely pretense…semantics…tautology.  Meaningless; effecting no change.  The rock and the hard place metaphor.  And this is where those of us who laud reason never lose.  You see, with all the sophism and emotion and ad hominem, it is easy to be fooled into thinking that the collectivist has a rational point, and that you merely disagree with his reason…but not that his reason is, in fact, entirely unreasonable.  It is easy to assume that the idea of the “common good” can have a rational meaning.  But the reality is that “common good” is the most vapid, meaningless, reason-less idea which man ever conjured in the dark, wretchedly pungent and smoke-filled back rooms of Marxist devil-worship.  There is no such thing…but enough people accept it to maintain the illusion that collectivists actually have a solid trump card in any argument by appealing to the notion of “common good”.  But in reality the cognitive dissonance, the suspension of disbelief, and the abject contradictions necessary to sustain such a notion are so deep that it becomes so absolutely subjective that there seemingly exists an answer for almost everything.  The answers are never right, mind you, but since there is an answer, and answers again seemingly never-ending, they are able to maintain the effective facade of possessing an argument which is inherently given to avoiding logical corners.

But this doesn’t work with the metaphysics.  And it cannot.

Since the metaphysics are utterly irreducible, there is ONLY a corner…for everyone, including me.  Eventually, all ideas must begin with a definition of man, and there are only two to choose from:  Man is Self, or Man is NOT Self (Man is Collective; man is Laws of Physics; Man is Effect from External Cause;  Man is Objective Reality Outside Himself, Man is Creation from Nothing; man is Product of Divine Will/Determinism, etc.).  And one is clearly rational, and one is clearly an impossible contradiction.  One must lead to the rational fulfillment of existence, and one must lead to abuse, exploitation, and murder.

As I have said in the past, get the metaphysics right and you will get everything right.  It’s all about the metaphysics.  And it’s either Door A or Door B; X or Y; Red Pill or Blue Pill.  There is only one absolute; one is absolute Truth and the other absolute Lie.  One is absolute Good and the other absolute Evil.  Are you you? Or are you not you?  That’s the question upon which literally everything else depends.

*

People who extol the virtues of an epicenter of ruling Authority by which their subjective morality can be thrust upon everyone else are not actually opposed to oppression, exploitation, violence, murder, and chaos, no matter to what degree they may claim thus, and no matter how successful they have been in convincing themselves they are truly pacifists who want nothing more than the “disadvantaged” cared for, and opportunity equalized (whatever that means).  They merely view said violence and chaos, et. al. “moral” when it is centralized; when it is the sole jurisdiction of a select group of men who claim the divine/transcendent/etc. right to determine “goodness” and “truth” for everyone else by virtue of their “calling” to existentially define the collective for those individuals who comprise the collective.  Just as “gun control” advocates aren’t actually for gun control, they are only for controlling the guns outside the purview of the State Authority, so these Marxists are not for “peace” and “equality” and “compassion” and “justice”; they merely seek such “outcomes” amongst those outside of the power of the State Authority.  Of the rulership.  The Authority may employ all manner of violence, inequality, arbitrary punishment, and moral relativism in order to bring about said “peace” and “compassion” and “justice”, et. al.

The cognitive dissonance is thinking that peace can be a function of violence; that justice can be a function of compelling people against their will; that equality can be a function of setting up a State by which different rules apply to “leaders” and the “people”.  In other words, violence and abuse are fine as long as they are a function of the central Authority in order to bring about the subjective “morality” people like Randy assume.  Whatever is necessary to get the collective to obey Randy, as long as it is via the central Authority, is perfectly acceptable.

Further, if violence and abuse and oppression is used to affirm whatever group Randy decides is the moral plumb line–in this case the poor/unfortunate/marginalized/minority/disadvantaged/etc.–then said violence et. al. is fine.  It is just.  It is only evil if it is employed by the individual…someone using it in defense of their own, singular Self.

But the functional conclusion, according to their own metaphysics, must be the same for the “poor” and “unfortunate” and “minority” as it is for the “privileged” or the “majority”:  humanity must be destroyed.  And, if the philosophy is followed to its logical conclusion, humanity will be.  The only “moral” difference is whether the destruction comes via the individual or the central Authority.

Randy’s comment is a non-starter for me, period.  If I had been in my friend, Andy’s, shoes, I would have demanded he explain the contradiction or I would have withdrawn.

And here’s a teachable moment:  people like Randy–latent or blatant Marxists–NEVER want to address the metaphysics, because they can’t, having spent no time considering them in the first place.  Therefore, these political discussion groups merely bat around the same old tired issues, like a cat batting around an old ball of yarn because, having little or no object permanence, believes it to be new and novel, and eventually find their way to the same old conclusion shared by every political party in existence:  man needs to be governed; which means that man needs an Authority to define his reality for him (to define Self), which means man needs to be forced against his will–his own will being merely an illusion–which means inevitable violence, which results in man being utterly removed from himself at the metaphysical level, which means that the only point of the individual’s existence is for that individual to be destroyed.

And once that’s the conclusion, political differences of opinion are merely semantic.  Irrelevant.  A distraction from truth, not a path unto it.

This is why I no longer vote.  I aver that above all one’s vote is the greatest philosophical concession they can make to the idea of the State as the Standard of morality and truth.  Not the individual.  And the very fact that even limited-government libertarians assume that reductions in government must come from the actions of elected government officials acting in the capacity of ruler…as facets of that very same government reveals the rational disconnect within the minds of even the most well-intentioned people.

In short, once we assume that limited government can only happen BY government we have already conceded the right of government to infinitely grow and to compel all of man’s outcomes.

And this is the root of Randy’s argument.  He assumes that since all truth and morality can only be a function of those “called” to rule the collective, what works for the individual is only valid if it works for the whole of the group.  And what works for the group can never be a product of the individual because the metaphysics are mutually exclusive…it’s “group” versus “self”, and the only true metaphysic is the collective one, according to Randy; which means reality can only be defined by the governors of the collective, which means they must be in a position to force the individual into the “common good”.

What’s good for Andy MUST be exclusive of what’s good for the collective.  Which means Andy must be forced into sacrificing himself for the common good.  And this is the very heart of what Randy believes.