Category Archives: Metaphysics

More on the Self and the Fallacy of “Existence Exists”

Let’s take a chair.

Is the chair able to exist…as a chair?

No?

But if it is unable to exist, then how does the chair manifest its existence…how can it BE a chair if it’s not able to be a chair?

Let’s say that Ability is not considered  wrt to the suggested metaphysical primary, Existence. Then “chair” is simply a manifestation of existence qua existence…it cannot be distinctly known as “chair”. You see, if the chair doesn’t have any inherent ability to BE a chair then it isn’t actively a chair…it doesn’t act–it doesn’t DO–as a chair, and so how can it be said to be a chair? What’s the difference between the existence of “chair” and existence of, say, “tree”? It doesn’t ACT as a chair, so what exactly makes it a chair? All of the things that make it chair must be relative to the things that make a tree a tree? But the tree doesn’t act as tree, and the chair doesn’t act as chair–because they possesses no inherent, underlying Ability–and so by what means can we qualify or quantify the distinctions? Chair is chair and tree is tree, and neither act and thus there is no relative distinction between the two..because relativity (relative distinction) requires action requires the ability to act, and they possess no ability. They only possess existence. But then what is the difference between the existence of tree and existence of chair?

There is none.

There is no ability and thus no action, and thus no relative distinction.  Any distinction would be absolute. But there is no such thing as absolute distinction because absolute distinction is infinite distinction; and infinite distinction precludes co-existence.

And this is why Existence as the metaphysical primary wrecks ALL distinctions between its supposed particulars. There is no tree and no chair; there is only existence. There is no ability to exist and thus no action of existence and thus no relativity of the objects which are said to exist and thus no way to make distinctions of the particulars of existence and thus no way to define the particulars of existence (e.g. chair as opposed to tree) and thus no way to claim that any of the particulars of existence exist and thus no way to claim that existence exists.

But if we say the chair has the ability to exist then we make existence AS CHAIR an action…something the chair does. It is doing as a function of its ability to do. And all doing is relative. There is no action that is not relative, because a single object cannot move in a vacuum. (In a vacuum, there is literally no difference between position A and B of a given object, whether in time or space.) And so if being is action and action is relative then those extant properties which make a tree a tree and a chair a chair are, in fact, a manifestation of their ability to act (as chair or tree) and thus are likewise relative. And relative distinctions do not make a chair a chair and a tree a tree except that they be by conceptualized. Relative distinctions are not absolute, by definition. They require an observer. They require conceptualization via a constant…a reference. And that reference is Self. Is “I”.

And so the Ability (to “exist”…e.g. as chair) which drives the action (of “existence”…e.g. being a chair) demands the relativity (of “existence”…e.g. of chair) which demands conceptualization (of “existence”…e.g. the sentient observation of the chair) which demands a constant–a reference (for the “existence”…e.g. of the chair) and that reference is “I”.

That reference is what I mean by the Self.

Metaphysics: Ability-Action-Relativity-Conceptualization-Constant

The Self: Addressing some criticism

Criticism: That I advocate “the Infinite Self” as the metaphysical primary.

As I stated in my last article, and in many other articles and comments as well, I advocate Ability as the metaphysical primary. I do, however, understand why some get confused (and I admit I wish I could make my ideas a little more easily grasped) because I do often make reference to the Self as a very important part of rational metaphysics. Metaphysics begins with a primary, which implies several necessary foundational corollaries until we run into epistemology. The Self is one of these foundational corollaries. Well…I consider the Self to be in some sense the bridge between metaphysics and epistemology.

In brief summary, the way I describe my metaphysics are as follows:

Ability implies action; action implies relativity (movement is relative); relativity implies conceptualization (defining what exactly is moving relatively). Keep in mind that this is not a chain of causes and consequences. “Implies” is not “equals”, so to speak. The primary, Ability, includes all of these corallaries within its foundational essence. Now, note that my metaphysics do not allow for any “particulars” in the concrete sense…that tangibility is some how actual–that its a thing that is a thing; or tangibility qua tangibility. This is intentional. I freely admit that I don’t view reality as consisting of concretes and abstractions. But rather, specifics and abstractions; or better said, material concepts and abstract concepts. There is a reason for this, which I refer to as the “Parts Paradox”, but I will get into that a little later.

And here is where the Self comes in. You see, in order to qualify and quantify relative movement via conceptualization, there must be a reference; and so the “existential constant”, you might say, is the Self.  You qua You. At least, as far as metaphysics go. Epistemologically the Self is you as body. As flesh and blood. As a collection of parts. But the reason we refer to ourselves as an “I” and not as an “us” is because we all understand, as a very function of what makes us US, that we are not simply a body; that we are a frame of reference.

For what?

For everything.

Absent You, you have no means by which you can know, or assert, or BE anything. This very fact, that “existence” ceases to EXIST in any way absent You, not as a body but as a Self–and absolutely so–is proof of the constant nature of You. As soon as someone says “there is existence outside of me” they have contradicted themselves. Because they cannot claim “existence” whilst denying the ONLY  reference by which they can speak of it in the first place.

Some people mistake this as a “Primacy of Consciousness” metaphysics. But what it really is is an acknowledgement of the most self-evident of all Truths: That everything you say and do depends on you being absolutely You. That you must and do interpret everything from the Constant Self.  And even if the the Self–of You qua You–was merely transient, it wouldn’t matter. Whatever is “before” you or “after” you is not something you, being wholly YOU, can incorporate ontologically. The “transient” YOU is bookended by blanks. It doesn’t matter what philosophical sophism you attempt to fill those blanks with, the fact is that you are an Absolutet Constant in your existence, whether choose to accept it or not.

So, here’s my metaphycial construct with this in mind:

Ability–Action–Relativity–Conceptualization–Constant

Next, Causality, the rational failure of “Existence exists”, Action defining objects as opposed to the other way around, and Particulars–the Parts Paradox.

How Aristotle is Both Right and Wrong About “A is A”

One may understandably take issue with my maxim that A is only A relative to B…because that which does not exist relative to anything else cannot be compared, and without comparison there is no definition, so you can’t claim that it actually exists. In other words, you cannot say what A is unless you can say what it is NOT. Making what A is NOT (e.g. B) an existential requirement for A, making A’s existence inexorably bound to B’s. This wrecks any distinction between A and B with respect to existence as a metaphysical primary. Meaning, existence implies no actual distinction between those things which are said to exist. Which destroys A and B entirely at the level of their root existence. This truth does not make me a subjectivist or proponent of consciousness as a primary. It merely makes me perceptive.

Now, having said that, this is correct in a sense:  that my point above does not, itself, provide for the full reconciliation of the existential paradox: Achieving a plurality of existence from a single metaphysical primary.  How are there distinct objects, relating to one another in an identical and absolute metaphysical context…that is, being direct functions of the same singular metaphysical root, and yet also being entirely and rationally distinct?

However, I submit that being correct here: That A must actually be A, utterly and distinctly so, if we shall assert that it is NOT B–does not make me wrong here: That A cannot in fact be A absent the relative existence of B (because that which cannot be compared cannot be defined; and that which cannot be defined cannot be said to exist). This makes A as much a function of B as it makes A utterly distinct from B.

The failure of Aristotelian apologists to observe and address this paradox is (partly) why Aristotelian metaphysics have ultimately lead nowhere except a repeat of the historic cycle of individuals conceding to collectivist ideologies, creating tyrannical states which eventually implode, killing millions in the process, with the survivors then rising from the ashes only to start the whole nightmare over again.

That A must be A (in an appeal to Aristotle) as a prerequisite for relatively comparing it to B does not in fact disprove the that A cannot in fact be A unless it is relatively compared to B.

It’s a chicken-and–egg type deal. Aristotelian metaphysics rest essentially upon one half of the paradox, and thus at best they tell only half the story.

The sum and substance of my journey into metaphysics has been:

A. to observe the aforementioned metaphysical paradox and the necessary resultant rational and practical insufficiencies of both Primacy of Existence and Primacy of Consciousness metaphysical models, and…

B. to offer a solution to the paradox in the form of a new, more effective primary: Ability.

A greater examination of that, and various related topics, will be undertaken in subsequent articles.

Any Honest King Will Keep His Wormtongue and Kill His Conscience

Only in fantasy stories do kings wake up and cast off their Wormtongues. This is because Wormtongue is the reality of the innate and necessary corruption of Authority–the compelling of behavior by “legal” violence, despite the most noble of rulers and their noble  intentions.

You see, in reality, it is Wormtongue who speaks the truth to the King; and it is the King’s conscience which lies. A “good King”–that is, a truthful and honest king, who is consistent with the metaphysic which demands Authority to compel obedience to Law–will abide Wormtongue and banish love.

Is this good, rationally speaking? Of course not: but again, it is good IF we accept the axiomatic definition of Man which necessitates the idea that it is appropriate to govern him. And by “govern” I mean: organize his behavior, specifically his interactions with himself (men and women associating with others), by codifying moral behavior (Law), and thus moving it outside of its only true and natural source, the individual, and thereby making morality utterly abstract and thus utterly subjective as far as man is concerned, and thereby necessitating an Authority–be it a King or any other incarnation of State Violence (that is, the State, period), even “democratically elected public officials” (and by the bye, a greater example of raw, meaningless, subjectivity you’ll not find anywhere than those words)–whose authority transcends any real rational integrity, and who fundamentally exists for the sole purpose of using force and threats to cause the obedience of the denizens.

And what is this definition of man?

It is that he is not him Self. He is not “I”. “I” is an illusory existential frame of reference–a lie–which, by its inexorable and infinite hold on him, makes him unable to perceive the Truth: which is that he is, in fact, nothing at all. That he qua he (he as Individual), is really an infinite collection. He is the group, yet never OF the group. He is “race”, or “class”, or “sex”, or “nation”, or “church”, or “minority”, or “underprivileged”, etc.. The individual is the group; which contradicts his individuality, and thus demands that it be sacrificed by the Authority into the collective “reality.”

And so I say again, any honest King, with even the slightest apprehension of just what the fuck his whole point is, and whether he admits it to himself or not, understands that he is Violence to men, and literally nothing else. He IS the force which compels everyone and everything into the collective Ideal. He is The Efficacy of the Ideal…of the Utopia…of the Collective Paradise. And thus, he IS the very Ideal itself. And this being true, it is his duty to incessantly invite Wormtongue to stifle whatever compassion he may be tempted towards. For to deny the raw and unfettered subjugation and sacrifice of men is to deny the Ideal, and thus deny himself.

There is no such thing as a King with a conscience. Any such King admits, whether he knows it or not, that he is a fraud, and that sooner or later, the kingdom MUST collapse.

And it will.

It will.

How Exactly Does Existence Imply a Plurality of Itself?: More Problems with Objectivism

Objectivism asserts a reality distinct from the observer…the observer being, of course, “he who observes”.  Now, understand that when we speak of observation we necessarily imply cognition; and I prefer this term to “consciousness”, since “consciousness” has become rationally opaque and is used by objectivism and other philosophies as a synonym for what is fundamentally subjective. Also, “cognition” is less cumbersome, anyway.  It merely means an observer conceptualizing the distinction between himself and what he observes.  Which is the foundation of language, and therefore gets to the very heart and root of real truth.

But cognition is not simply a biological or physiological process…so we need to be careful here.  It CAN BE a rational synonym for “consciousness”, I submit, because it implies a necessary awareness of the distinction between one’s Self, as the Observer (the frame of reference for knowledge), and that which is observed.  In other words, cognition does not necessarily imply the neurological, but rather the active and efficacious and relevancy-giving conscious awareness of the neurological (so to speak…meaning, awareness that “neurological” is a thing in the first place…a truth which can be applied to a purpose specifically and necessarily determined by the observer).

So objectivism assert this distinction between “objective reality” and the observer…by which it means a distinction between “objective reality” and cognition.  Now, this distinction is alone enough to discredit objectivism as any kind of rational school of thought, since absent the observer’s ability to define this reality from his own existential frame of reference via cognition, he cannot claim that it exists at all…as objectively real or otherwise. In which case you cannot make any philosophical claims about it whatsoever.  I mean, if “objective reality” is objectively real, and the observer’s position in it is not mutually exclusive of it, then the observer must also be objectively real.  Which means that the tool by which he interprets and defines it, that is, his cognition–his own conscious and singular frame of reference–must also be objectively real.  So…how can one’s consciousness/cognition be divorced from objective reality?

It can’t.

So…there is no “objective reality” outside of consciousness.  Which means that once you are no longer existentially conscious (alive), then you have no frame of reference for objective reality, which means it has no relevancy to you, which means it has no truth to you, where “you” is an absolute context, which means that it cannot be said to exist.  It cannot be said to be anything. Which means that beyond your consciousness you cannot claim a reality which continues, outside of you.

As soon as you attempt to divorce consciousness/cognition from objective reality, you’re done.  You’ve created a contradiction which collapses the whole philosophy.

Nevertheless, let’s continue, because there is another problem–albeit closely related–with objectivism which bears explication.

There can be no distinction between reality and the observer because the observer has no frame of reference for such a reality; and this  because he has no frame of reference for for anything outside of that by which he knows (and therefore can claim) anything–his absolute SELF.  And himSELF, is “he who observes”.

Because he cannot step outside of his own observation, he cannot claim that there is anything outside of that observation.  Whatever is outside of his powers of observation cannot be defined, and therefore he cannot claim that they exist outside of himself.  For “himself” and his observation are entirely corollary.  There is no reality outside himself because it is only by himself, and absolutely so, as the observer that he can make any truth claim, of which “reality” is perhaps preeminent.  It is like claiming that I know what it’s like to be a cup of coffee…that is, because I can “be” a cup of coffee outside of myself, I can claim that “here is coffee”, and “there is me”, from TWO completely distinct frames of reference.  But this is impossible since my SELF as the observer is utterly singular.  The cup of coffee “outside” of me only exists as such because I OBSERVE it and define it and give it truth as a function of ME–my absolute frame of reference as the (conscious/cognitive) observer. Without me, there is no frame of reference for that cup of coffee; in which case, I have no definition for coffee that is “real”, “outside of me”.  That is, since I am not a cup of coffee, I can only ever define a cup of coffee as it pertains, absolutely and categorically, to me from my absolute frame of reference as the observer. The distinction, then, between “me” and “cup of coffee”, is entirely a function of MY singular ability to conceptualize the distinction.  Without that ability, that is, without me, as utterly and absolutely myself, consciously/cognitively, there is no distinction.  And therefore, there is no “reality’ outside of me.  A cup of coffee entirely and “objectively” outside of me–outside of my SELF–is entirely and infinitely irrelevant.  And one cannot claim the existence of that which is infinitely irrelevant. And in this way, apprehending a “reality” for me–that is, a reality that I can observe and thus claim from the place of me, yet not from me, but outside of me–is a violation of both my identity and the identity of “reality”.  To claim a reality outside of me that I can somehow observe and know and yet exists entirely and absolutely and completely independent of me is not to affirm reality, but to destroy it.  It is to dismantle cognition as the means of ascertaining truth, because it is to say that human cognition has nothing fundamentally to do with reality.  But since cognition is, in fact, the means, and only means, by which man can know anything, to dismantle it is to subordinate humanity to an entirely unknowable “reality”.  And if that isn’t a recipe for tyranny, then I don’t know what is.  And this is precisely why in the 60 years or so since Objectivism became the chef d’oeuvre of “rationalists” despotism has done nothing but advance…and mightily so.

*

While Objectivists speak of absolute distinction between the observer and reality, they also claim that Objectivism fully and absolutely integrates the observer, via the metaphysical primary of Existence, into that reality.  This is a problem.  How can you step outside of that which is, at root, you–existence–in order to observe you?  That is, if you are are fully and absolutely a function of the absolute and infinite metaphysical primary, how can you make the distinction between “you” and “reality” by appealing to an absolute which is both?

In order to answer this contradiction, some objectivists, or respecters of Objectivism, will assert the concept of “emergent properties”. And this is the idea that something in whole becomes greater in some sense than the sum of its parts.  This, in fact, cannot be literally true. That is, it is only ever subjectively true, never objectively so. Abstractly…subjectively, yes.  A thing can have more value than its mere material properties would suggest; but notice that this requires a conscious observer to apply that thing to his particular frame of reference of Self. In terms of objective truth, it is impossible to claim that a thing is anything more than that of which it is comprised at root.  That is, there is no such thing as some “property” “emerging” beyond the absolute irreducible ontic essence of something. Like, if we claim that all things, including human beings, are at root a function of immutable physical laws, or absolute fundamental particles interacting according to these absolutely immutable physical laws (which is a contradiction…but that’s a topic for later), and that this has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness/cognition–that is, has nothing to do with the fact that man apprehends and defines ALL of what he perceives as real via his awareness of Self (his ability to conceptualize relative distinctions between his Self, and what is NOT Self)–then we cannot claim that consciousness is somehow an “emergent property” and therefore doesn’t contradict the absolute and irreducible source of man and all things, which is utterly and absolutely unconscious.  This is a fallacy, and cannot be taken seriously.

The idea of “emergent properties”, in other words, is the irrational assertion that you get consciousness from what is absolutely unconscious; that you get free will from irrelevant determinism (biological, physical, natural, mathematical); that you get Self–in the sense of a singular “You”, from NOT You; an observational and existential frame of reference of “I” from NOT I; that what is infinite, Existence–which according to Objectivism is the irreducible, infinite metaphysical primary–spawns a plurality of finite objects; that an infinite existence somehow produces a plurality of itself without contradicting itself.

And it is from this claim–that existence as the metaphysical primary somehow spawns a plurality of itself…where things can actually exist utterly distinct from one another and allow for the observer to perceive a “reality” outside himself (outside his cognition)–that we get the common obectivist refrain of “existence exists”.

But “existence exists” is simply saying that existence has existence, which is a tautological assertion, and therefore a logical failure.  You see, the rational metaphysical argument is not that the primary simply implies itself, but that it implies someONE–some observer; some reference–who is able to claim that it is, in fact, the metaphysical primary in the first place; that it is, in fact, TRUE. That it holds REAL relevance; REAL efficacy.  That it implies something in a practical sense beyond itself, which can see it, and know it, but doesn’t contradict it as the absolute and irreducible primary.  Objectivism fails at this, and therefore ultimately fails entirely…as does any other philosophy which fails to meet the requirement for a rationally consistent metaphysical primary.

Now, having said that, reconciling this inherent metaphysical paradox is really hard.  So hard, in fact, that I’m not sure of any primary outside of my own (Ability) which successfully does this.  Here’s why it’s so challenging:

Let’s look at “existence exists” again.  What is absolutely itself, and irreducibly, or infinitely so, cannot possess properties of itself, because those “properties” are necessarily also infinite.  And as such they are undefinable…other than to say that the properties of existence are existence itself, which as I have explained is a logical failure.

Further, saying that existence exists is merely saying that existence is itself, which is a meaningless claim unless “itself” can be defined.  But if “itself” is infinite then it cannot be valued…for if there is no limitation to itself, then it cannot be anywhere, and thus it cannot be anything.  Another way to put it is: that which is everything and everywhere cannot be anything or anywhere.  That which is all is itself nothing.

But the rational metaphysical primary must certainly be absolute, and thus infinite, which according to my explication above is a contradiction that seems beyond resolution, making any metaphysical primary impossible.  Now, I submit that this is not actually the case–that it is a true paradox, and not a contradiction, and therefore has a resolution.  But the question here is: Does “existence” as a primary resolve it?

The answer is no.  Because “existence” doesn’t imply anything beyond itself, and this is proven by the epigram which oft accompanies it: “existence exists”.  This simply means that existence implies existence.  It begins and ends with itself.  The “plurality” of itself, from which the observer ostensibly arises, ironically doesn’t actually exist! The observer cannot be made rationally distinct from “existence” if “existence” is the metaphysical primary…a distinction which is utterly necessary if he is to actually observe anything.  You see, it’s not about whether or not the observer exits, but whether or not the observer is able to define existence.  That is, it’s not about whether or not the observer IS at root the metaphysical primary, but whether the primary actually implies–demands/necessitates–that there BE an observer…that he occupy a place from which he can SEE it, as distinct from himself, and know it, and define it, and therefore make it relevant; make it actually the TRUE metaphysical primary.

But, again, “existence” doesn’t imply anything beyond itself, and therefore the observer cannot actually observe it (nor anything else, since all “things” are equally infinite “existence), and so he cannot define it.  Therefore, as soon as an objectivist makes any truth claim, let alone the claim that “existence” is the metaphysical primary, they have dismantled the primary and thus their entire philosophy. There is nothing outside of existence, not even the objectivist. Because all things have equal absolute existence, there is no such thing as “all things”.  There is just infinite existence, which is, in fact, nothing at all. Because: that which is all, is actually nothing.

In summary, there is a dreadfully complicated paradox here that for all of its beauty and Rand’s inarguable genius Objectivism doesn’t answer.  Because to answer it is to reject its metaphysical primary, which is a rejection of itself.  The only root objective thing at all anywhere is the metaphysical primary; and Objectivism’s primary, existence, spawns nothing but subjectivism by affirming and necessitating that the observer/reality paradox is infinitely paradoxical.  And this is how a paradox becomes a contradiction.  Because a paradox which can have no resolution is no longer a paradox, it is an impossibility…a contradiction in terms.  And contradiction is the mother of subjectivity. Because contradiction as infinite foundational “truth” spawns infinite truths. Which is simply infinite contradiction.

All of this makes Objectivism considerably ironic.  An “objective” metaphysic which demands utterly subjective epistemology, purpose, ethics, and politics is hardly objective, let alone a rational basis for the argumentation of objective reality.

END

To Vote is to Be Ruled: Voting, and why it is NOT a choice (part 4)

An Authority, like the Government–the State–by its very definition exists to compel, absent argument or reason, obedience. And it is so important to understand this. For if a reason was required in order for the State to exercise its power to force compliance, then its very nature–its very existence–would be contradicted.  And I don’t mean a “reason”, like “do it because I said so”, or “because it’s in God’s Word” (which is a make-believe thing), or “because I’ll beat the shit out of you if you don’t”.  I mean an actual reason; an explanation that appeals to rational consistency (i.e. Truth) in order to convince someone of something because it is in their own interest, both practical and existential (which are corollary), to agree with it and to choose it.

And “in one’s own interest” is the only rational reason one can be convinced of anything–for no one has a frame of reference “outside” themselves, and thus, they have no frame of reference for anything but their own interest. So from this you can see just why the State simply cannot give a reason for the exercising of its power to compel.  Because “power to compel” and “the interest of one’s (the Individual’s) self” are mutually exclusive.

Authority is not an option; it’s not a suggestion; it’s not a guideline.  It’s force, period.  And force is violence, period.  And using violence to compel a person to act is absolutely contradictory to that person’s self-interest, period.  Always.

Now, naturally when I say “always” I am not referring to the innocent defending themselves from people who are clearly and imminently violating them; from evil people who by their own violence have rejected their own individuality and thus their own relevancy and value and purpose for existence. My argument here is that evil people–people violating others–cannot be forced to act (violently coerced) because they are not people for as long as they accept that they may and do seek to destroy human beings.  These evil, violent men and women are not Individuals, by their own assumptions and presuppositions…that is, by their own ideas! They are forces of nature.  And in the same way as you are forced to deal with attacking wolves and biting snakes you are forced take steps to deal with these assholes. You see, because their evil forces you to react to them, in ways which often, and preferably, mean their destruction, it cannot be claimed that one who acts to protect his person and property is making an immoral choice…that is, is violating THEM.  You cannot ascribe a moral value to a necessary fact of one’s life: that one must live.  To refuse to defend one’s self and his or her property (or family) because one doesn’t want to do violence against another “human being” is a violation of reason, and thus morality and truth itself. To ascribe to the violent man the same existential definition of “self” as you would the man of peace and compassion is itself a violent act, violating the very fabric of love which allows for human beings to effect their humanity upon the world and upon others.  In short, it succumbs to evil as though surrendering to hell turns it into heaven.

Finally, it is an interesting thing to note that violent attackers violate the primary ethic of Self, or Self-ness, and in doing so they, in fact, and I mean at the most fundamental ontological level, murder themselves, not others.  The true victims of their evil are them, and for themselves it is hell that they must necessarily reap in this world and the next.

And the innocent have every right in creation to take them there.

To Vote is to Be Ruled: Voting, and why it is NOT Choice (Part 3)

(NOTE: I’m sure those of you who happen to read here notice that this is part three of a two part series.  Well…naturally, that makes no sense, so I have decided that it’s not longer a two-part series, but a series of indefinite parts.  Suffice to say that realized that I have much more to to contribute to this particular topic than I originally thought, so I am forced to extend it.  Thanks for your patience and flexibility.  Also, if you’ve not done so, please go back and read parts one and two, under a different title (more wordy): “You Vote Not for a Candidate, You Accept the Rule of the State: Voting, and why it is NOT choice”.)

*

A choice you are forced to make which subordinates you to an Authority–which by its very nature and the by the purpose for which it was established in the first place, assumes the right to compel your behavior without your consent–is not actually a choice.  It is the opposite of choice.  It is YOU, submitted to another against your will.  The fact that you can choose your overlord by a vote is besides the point.  Once you accept that the means of social organization is “legal” violence to compel “moral” outcomes (where morality and legal obedience have become corollary, which is utterly despotic) no matter how benevolent and/or productive those outcomes may be, you have rejected the idea that you really choose anything.  Whatever “choices” you make can only occur according to what the established authority will allow…which makes your choice nothing more than a direct function of the will of the Authority.  And if your choice is a function of another’s choice, which is what this means, then you don’t really have any choice at all.

*

When the outcome of a free choice is implemented specifically through submission to an determining Authority–established precisely to compel you into a subjective moral obligation through violence–then its not a choice.  Its a rational contradiction, and as such it cannot be practically realized.  It simply cannot.  You cannot implement in reality an idea that contradicts itself conceptually (rationally).  For example, cannot establish a free autocracy.  You cannot volunteer to be enslaved.  You cannot make a metal door out of wood.  Man’s ability to know anything about objective reality, and then to manipulate it to his own purposes, depends upon him not contradicting the terms by which he organizes it conceptually. Man’s conceptualizing faculty and objective reality are NOT mutually exclusive, and cannot effectively nor rationally be made distinct.  Because what man cannot conceptually organize he cannot observe.  And this I understand is not an intuitive notion, nevertheless, what man cannot say IS, because it both IS and IS NOT (e.g. it is blue but is simultaneously red; it is flying but is  simultaneously walking) he cannot identify as anything except a nullification of itself…as a VOID.  As a NOT.  And what is NOT, cannot exist.  And if it cannot exist it cannot be known, and therefore it cannot be established.

*

Disobedience to an Authority, due to the very nature of Authority, is not allowed.  This is precisely because IT IS AUTHORITY.  And I know what some of you are thinking, so I will address it now.  Submitting oneself to an entity which exists singularly upon the premise that man must be governed–which means he must be compelled by force into moral behavior because his nature will not allow him to effectively survive according his own unfettered will alone–is not the same thing as engaging in a voluntary contract with another person, where both parties are obligated to the terms, as necessary to the rational definition of a mutually beneficial exchange of value, or “voluntarism”, which is the only rational and legitimate ethic that exists, I submit.  For if the parties involved do not fulfill their contractual obligations then no exchange of value has occurred, by definition, and thus the contract is void, and the remiss party or parties are guilty of violating not the “law”, and not even the contract itself, but their fellow manthat by which the contract has any meaning, purpose, or value in the first place.  And this is an actual violation of morality, as opposed to merely a legal one.  And a legal one is not actually immoral because it is not the law nor the authority which grants man his moral value, but man which grants moral value, or any value, or any relevancy, to anything, including the law.  It is man which is the moral reference.  Not the law, not the contract, and not Authority.

Additionally, a governing authority by its very nature and purpose declares that man is not capable, by his own nature, of defining the terms of such a contract in the first place.  Because he is at his very root depraved, and incapable of truly living according to voluntary interaction (because this necessitates an ability to truly define and then willfully implement moral standards, which man doesn’t posses), then he cannot actually agree to a contract.  He must have “contracts” forced upon him by an authority which may use violence against him should he refuse them.  Which he will, because it’s his nature, which is why the authority exists in the first place.

An authority like the State exists solely and in every case to force compliance to the abstract moral standard, the “law”.  And man is by nature is antithetical to this standard…he does not by his nature bring anything of any worth to it at all…and this because he exhibits willful behavior, which his utterly insufficient (depraved) nature demands he use to reject the law, not to promote or obey it.  And this is why man must be violently compelled into obedience.  In other words, the reason man must be governed is precisely because he cannot actually obey the moral standard, the law, at all.  By nature.  He therefore must be sacrificed to it…and not only because he cannot obey it, but because it, not man, is that from which “goodness” flows…as it, not man, is the moral standard.  IT gives goodness to man, not the other way around.  And IT, being absolute goodness, and therefore absolutely true, and therefore absolutely efficacious, must consume everything around it. And it is the job of the Authority to make this happen.  It is the job of those who must exist as the practical, willful conscience of the Law–the Law incarnate–to compel integration.  Which, practically speaking, means that those in authority are not looking at you as one to whom they must give respect, or one whose interests they serve.  On the contrary, by the very nature of authority, the relationship is precisely the opposite.  You shall serve them, as they, as far as you are concerned, are the law to which you are obligated to make absolute sacrifice.  And this being the case, your choice is besides the point.  Which makes voting nothing more than a ritual designed to assure your obedience by giving you the impression that you somehow possess autonomy.  It plays to your naturally depraved and thoroughly false sense of individual identity while conditioning in you instinctive obedience.

It begs admiration as brilliant, in a Machiavellian kind of way.

Part 4 next. Stay tuned.

 

Communism and the Income Tax are the Same Thing

Controlling the means of production and taxing labor are at root the same thing; they merely approach the right of the State to own its citizens from different angles.  The first precedes profit (assumes future income and seizes it), the second follows profit (seizes income that has been made). They both assume the right of the State to commandeer (take without permission) its citizens’ profit by force.

Further, the distinction is most clearly obliterated when we realize that the real means of production is the individual.  Taking from the individual in the interest of the State by assuming the right to seize by violence whatever he produces, regardless of how–by building a factory or simply working in one–is the root of both ideas.

And truly, you cannot take from the individual without his consent unless you have already disregarded consent as being an illegitimate component of social value exchange.  And as surely as night becomes day once consent is disregarded man is no longer a human being to be bargained with but a thing to be owned.

What is Government?: All you need to know in two brief paragraphs

Government is “legal” violence. And what is “legal” violence? Simple. It is the violence necessary to compel the naturally evil individual into the collective moral code.

This “need” for “legal” (read “moral”) violence is predicated upon a false metaphysic: that individual man does evil by existing at all. In other words, to be man is to be evil. The Christians call this Total or Pervasive Depravity. Most other religions have their own labels, but it’s metaphysically identical.

The Ability to Conceptualize Must Precede Existence: Existence is an irrational metaphysical Primary

As described in the previous essay on this subject, object A must be defined in comparative terms with object B–or C, D, E, etc.. That is, in terms  that include what is not A.  And the presence of he who defines, that is, the observer, makes this fact self-evident. The observer can only know A from the frame of reference of himself. (Where Self is not a mathematical, but a metaphysical/ontological absolute. Not merely a reference, but the reference for all of what he calls Reality). Meaning, he must make the distinction as an observer between what he is and what he is not– that is, himself and, in this scenario, object A; he must make the distinction between the observed and the observer. And since the observer is required to provide the frame of reference for the definition and thus the Truth, Efficacy, and even morality of what is observed–again, in this example, object A–it is clear that A cannot exist in a vacuum of itself. The observer is required to define A in the first place, and thus declare that A, now defined as this or that, does, in fact, exist.  Which brings me to…

*

The Utter Necessity of Existence as Simply a Function of Conceptualization:

Of course, observation is not merely observation, itself, but is, in all practical and efficacious fact, a function of conceptualization. For it would seem self-evident (though, paradoxically, this is not asserted, except when conceptualization is confused with consciousness, which is false) that absent the conceptuualization of what is observed it is impossible to define what is observed. And if what is observed has no definition then there is no rational grounds to claim that anything is actually observed at all; and thus that which is said to exist–when Existence is the metaphysical primary, and observation (empiricism) is the means of ascertaining reality–at root cannot possibly be named and thus it cannot possibly be known, and thus it cannot possibly be said to BE, period.  In which case, where Existence precedes Conceptualization, it must be asserted that nothing actually exists first; and the observer then observes this “nothing” and somehow defines it.  In other words, the observer is said to observe nothing (that which is nameless and utterly definition-less), which somehow exists, and then conceptualize it, after which it becomes something…that is, nothing, which exists, becomes something because of man’s conceptualizing power, and yet man has nothing to do with its existence, even though without him it cannot be known or stated what actually exists at all. Which thus undermines the argument that Existence exists prior to conceptualization, because existence absent that which is defined as having existence is not only irrelevant and irrational, but impossible. Infinite Existence as a Primary can neither be valued, nor does it imply the existence of things which can be valued. Only conceptualization can create things which are said to exist. It is a controversial statement, but Conceptualization creates things from otherwise infinitely relative infinite parts; Existence does not, and cannot. And this fact disqualifies Existence as a the Primary.

(Without first the established and absolute Ability to conceptualize, Existence can have no relationship to whatever is said to exist, since it is not Existence which DEFINES that which is said to exists/that which is observed to exist, but the conceptualizing powers of the observer. Without first this ability, nothing can be defined, and thus nothing can exist, since it is impossible–by the very defining of Existence as the metaphysical primary–to divorce Existence from that which exists.)

*

The Epistemological Importance of Relatively

A will be conceptualized in terms which include what he, the observer, is not, which means that A  must also be defined in terms which include what it is not. For example, A is not the observer. Thus both the observer and A are defined, necessarily, due to the nature of observation, by comparing one to the other. A is A because it is not the observer, and vice versa. Rendered a different way, A is A because it is not B.  Which makes B a foundational reason why A is in fact A. One cannot make an existential or ontological  distinction between A and B without conceding that A and B have an existence which is entirely dependent (so to speak) upon one another, which means that neither A nor B can be themselves merely a function of themselves. Relative distinction between A and B, plus the conceptualization of the observer are all necessary in order for any definitions to be rendered for any of these things. (This is why I assert that Conceptualization and Relativity are corollaries, and are the foundation of all rational epistemology. In short, they are the only rational means by which man can know what he knows.)

So again, A is A because it is not B (where B could mean the observer) and vice versa; and this is the only means by which anything is and can be defined. Being relative to, but not B, means that A can actually be defined. For if something is not something else, only then can it be itself–and from this truth the observer is able to define that A is A. A is this, because it is observed, relatively (and only relatively) speaking, to not be that.

But if A is A absent this relative comparison–if A is A qua A, as Existence as the metaphysical Primary asserts, then:

1.  The observer cannot be present, because the presence of an observer automatically creates a relative distinction between the observer and A.  Which means that A must and will be defined in comparative terms…that is, in terms which include its relative distinction from the observer.  That is, A will be defined in terms that include what it is not. And therefore, it is impossible to claim that the existence of A is a function of itself–A qua A. If the assertion is that A is A qua A,  then the observer cannot be present, which means that no one is there to conceptualize A. In which case, how can A be defined?

2. A is infinite, with no end to itself, because an end necessitates the concession that A is distinct.  A ends, and where A ends something else not A must begin, even if the end of A is “space”. For  in this instance, where A ends, and there begins space, it must be conceded that space is in fact something, even if we merely concede that that something is simply “not A”. (Note: I do not concede that there is such a thing as space-as-an-object. My metaphysic declares a corollary relationship between relativity and conceptualization, eliminating both the need and the possibility of “empty space”, as a thing in and of itself.  I merely use space in this example to illustrate that a literal physical end to object A necessitates its relative existence with something not A, even if  we suppose that that something is merely empty space.) So again, if we accept that  A is A qua A, then we must concede that A is in fact infinite. Which means it cannot be valued, which means it cannot be defined. Hence…

3. Infinite A means that A cannot be valued, which means it cannot be defined. Which means it cannot be said to exist.

Conclusion

All of this serves to illustrate why the notion that A is A because A qua A–that is, A is itself because of itself,  from itself and to itself–is impossible. The very presence of the observer makes this fact self-evident. The very fact that A must be conceptualized in order to be defined means that A cannot be A qua A.

Remember, wherever there is someone asserting that A is A qua A, there is an observer, which thus nullifies the assertion.