# Why Motion is Not Actual, and the Indispensibility of the Singular Conscious Frame of Reference to Reality

As an aid to this article, here is the breakdown of the metaphysical premises of my philosophy, which I call Objective Relativism:

ABILITY (the metaphysical primary) (implies…)

ACTION (implies…)

RELATIVITY (implies…)

REFERENCE (or CONSTANT) (implies…)

SELF (or I) (implies…)

CONCEPTUALIZATION (or SELF-AWARENESS, or DISTINCTION BETWEEN SELF AND NOT-SELF) (implies…)

LANGUAGE (implies…)

COMMUNICATION (implies…)

OTHER (or OTHER SELF)

Summary: ABILITY (metaphysical primary), ACTION, RELATIVITY, REERENCE/CONSTANT, SELF, CONCEPTUALIZATION, LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION, OTHER

*

There’s a little ball…let’s say a cue ball on a pool table. It’s there, just sitting still. And I ask myself, ‘How exactly can this ball move?’ Which is an odd question. Maybe even a silly one. That is, until I clarify…because what I mean is not how does it move, but how can it. Now, I get the basics of Newton’s laws of motion…that’s not exactly what I’m asking here. My question is not a mechanical or mathematical one, but a philosophical one. I don’t care about the mechanisms behind movement so much as I care about the rational (or irrational) assumptions we must make about movement qua movement before those mechanisms can be in any way relevant or meaningful, and thus real.

What I’m asking is this: how exactly does an object, like a cue ball on a pool table, go from no movement to movement (some degree of). How are two ostensibly mutually exclusive states of being integrated in a singular reality?  How does the ball transition from NOT MOVEMENT to MOVEMENT? From an “is” to an “is not”? From a 0 to a 1?

Well, I think we need to appeal to relativity. We’ll say that movement is actually relative movement. Which means that there is no movement qua movement at all, but merely a relative existential definition given to an object by a constant…which I submit must be the Observer, because nothing else can actually provide any relevant and meaningful definition to “movement”.

But of course necessitating consciousness to reality seems extremely subjective to many, if not most, people. They are very uncomfortable with this idea because it makes consciousness (via the Consicous Observer) utterly fundamental to reality and therefore Truth, and they view consciousness as being entirely subjective (it actually isn’t, however…it’s actually the only thing which can be truly objective, but that’s another article). So they look to other explanations for the cause of movement. I believe that this is this is not actually possible, however, because unless we concede the relativity of movement, and thus the need for a consciousness reference in order that the reference not be just another relative object, then we must appeal to mathematics/science to explain movement. But math and science do not really explain how mutually exclusive absolutes, like 1 and 0, Movement and No Movement, Is and Is Not, can integrate and co-exist in the same reality so much as they simply accept and assert them as ipso facto and a priori. And by the way, this is why we need philosophy…because only metaphysics can unravel the inevitable rational paradoxes and contradictions that science and mathematics contrive as existential fundamentals.

So what we get when we try to interpret movement mathematically is the construct of movement as continuum, or s spectrum, and movement is thus said to manifest as a measure of degrees—units of movement—with zero movement being one end and infinite movement (movement beyond practical or possible measure) on the other. But the problem here is how to determine and measure the values between degrees. Presumably, and indeed mathematically, the difference between degrees is measured and manifest in more degrees, and the distinction between these degrees measured and manifest in even more degrees, and so on and so forth, until we eventually concede that the continuum is a continuum of infinite degrees, which makes any given degree of movement fundamentally infinite. And this means that the mathematical valuation of a degree of movement must be purely abstract, purely conceptual—that is, a contrivance of the observer for his own use, and not an actual iteration of some kind of “objective reality” outside of him. Not to mention that by definition zero and infinity cannot be ends of a continuum since they are absolutes, with zero being the absolute—-which means immeasurable—absence of a thing, and infinity being the absolute, immeasurable, presence of a thing. They are mutually exclusive, not “components” of a “shared singularity” called a continuum.

Thus, the whole continuum thing falls apart as a description of what is actually, objectively, being exhibited in reality when a cue ball goes from no movement to (some degree of) movement.

*

It is my assertion that the only possible explanation for how movement as an objective manifestation of reality and existence is possible is to conclude that movement doesn’t actually exist, as such. The cue ball doesn’t really move or not move, rather it simply exists relative to other things, with an observer conceptually describing its existence as (among other ways…that is, among other concepts) “moving” or “not moving” or having some “degree of movement” relative to other objects and referenced to his own constant of Self—that is, his own absolute and singular consciousness.

*

Absent an observer there is no way to claim that objects ever actually or objectively move at all, since in an infinite vacuum, like the Universe, all movement must be relative, which means subjective and nonactual. One cannot answer the question “Does object A move relative to B or is it the other way around?” in an observer-less vacuum because in such a context the only possible answer is, “Both and neither”. Which of course isn’t an answer at all. And you can speak all day of multiverses or an expanding/contracting finite universe, but these are not rational descriptions of the universe’s existence…they are attempts at integrating existence into the mathematical data, which is like attempting to integrate the real world into a computer facsimile. It’s not an answer, it’s a contrivance to get around the metaphysical Truth which science and math cannot describe.

Multiverses, if they are compatible or integrative with each other, must occupy a broader singular reality, meaning a broader singular Universe. A Universe of universes, which is itself a vacuum of purely relative objects.

Yet if they are not compatible or integrative but are mutually exclusive from each other then no one in a given univserse can possibly make any rational claims about the others, even that they exist at all. Because they wouldn’t have an existential frame of reference to make such claims. Other universes would not share reality or existence, and thus they wouldn’t be real or exist to each other in the first place. The multiverse becomes simply a mathematical theory, or a cute fantasy of scientists and mathematicians attempting to co-opt metaphysics, which is a subject, in general and in my experience, far beyond their talents and experience.

Asserting that our own universe is somehow finite begs the question: What is beyond it then?

If the answer is “nothing” then the universe can’t be finite because “nothing” is not, by definition, something which thus can serve as a demarcation between “our universe” and “outside our universe”. So if there is nothing at the edge of our universe, then our universe doesn’t have an edge. The only thing at the edge of our universe is our universe. Which means it is absolute, and singular. Which means it’s infinite.

But if the answer is “something else”  and that something else exists alongside our own universe in a shared reality then clearly our universe isn’t the Universe, but there is a greater universe which comprises both our universe and whatever is outside of it but in the same realty. But if that something is in a different reality then we couldn’t claim it’s real in the first place, because we’d have no frame of reference for a separate reality beyond our own. Which means we couldn’t make any claims about it, least of all that it exists at the edge of our own universe.

No, no matter how we try to explain away or equivocate, we are forced to admit that the universe is singular, it is infinite, it is a vacuum, and thus all which exists in it does so only relatively to each other. And thus, any movement is relative, and thus non-actual, and requires a conscious constant—a conscious reference—to conceptualize “movement”. Movement, and all of reality itself, requires an observer.

END

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

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

Hmm…

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

Hmm…

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

END

# The Objectivist/Empricist Confusion Between Perception and Interpretation

I get it.  I really do.  Of course we want to be sure that reality can be objectively defined…that it is not open to whimsical opinion about its nature and operation; that there is an absolutely objective essence to it, because this is quite clearly necessary to the formulation of truth.  And truth is to man what divides life from death, both physically and spritually.

What I don’t get is the relentless devotion so many otherwise brilliant men and women have to ideas about the nature of reality and how that nature is accessed and described which are so clearly irrational.  I don’t understand how it is felt that the key to objective reality is appealing to subjectivity.  That is, appealing to a rejection of the ONLY thing which can render an objective definition of anything:  human consciousness.

I will tell you what I mean.

The other day I heard an Objectivist on YouTube explain that the key to epistemology (truth) was understanding and accepting that reality existed separately from man’s perception of it.  Now, this sounds similar to the way other Objectivists I have heard and known explain it, and I assume that this person would certainly know, given his (apparent) depth of knowledge on the subject.  I, myself, am no expert on the intricases of Objectivism so I will accept that this is an accurate distillation of its metaphysics.

In my mind I stammer.  I am uncertain as to how to reply to such a facile and, no insult intended, imbecilic description of reality relative to man’s consciousness.  It’s like when your six year-old angrily asks why she cannot stay up late like mommy and daddy do.  If mommy and daddy can stay up late then why can’t she?  And you just stare at her stupidly and blinking for a few moments as your mind searches through its collection of arguments and finds that it possesses no readily available resource to deal with a question so infinitely obvious.  You would no more expect to be asked a question that stupid as you would to be asked how to drink a glass of water.

And that is how I felt when I heard that objectively understanding reality was to make a distinction between it and one’s perception.  It punched me in the face with its arrant nonsense, and yet the conviction and, er…the forgone conclusion-ness with which it was spoke froze my brain.  Immediately I knew it was madness, but it took me a few moments to manufacture a response in my mind.  Ask me how to drink a glass of water, and I promise I will look at you as though I’M the total idiot for a minute.

Reality is independent of one’s perception of reality?  I mean, as though that were somehow possible, even though the very fact that we are naturally self-aware means that a frame of reference for such a distinction cannot be had.  For if one’s perception is exclusive of reality, as is implied, then “perception of reality” is a contradiction in terms.  If perception isn’t real, then it doesn’t exist to perceive anything, including reality. So the notion of a distinction between perception and reality is ludicrous, especially when it is ALREADY implicitly conceded that perceiving reality IS REAL.

So, what are we dealing with here?  Well, clearly this is an attack on consciousness.  We all undersand that perception qua perception is nothing.  To perceive something, to sense it, yet to be unaware of it, is utterly redundant.  Perception itself thus must mean consciousness.  The efficacy of perception is awareness, period.  We all know this.  And from consciousness we get interpretation, and this is what the whole thing is all about. The fear of subjectively interpreting reality is what leads objectivists and empiricists to declare that reality is not actually open to interpretation.  (This is ironic in that Christians do the same thing with the Bible.)  It simply is.  It’s prima facie.  It’s de facto.  It is what it is and it does what it does.  And I understand the fear…of course we need reality to be objective.  To let everyone define reality as they choose is to make truth itself subjective, which makes it impossible for truth to ever actually be true.  And history has shown us, most recently in the form Marxist political revolution, that such ideology does nothing but turn mass murder into a virtue, and makes monsters of all men.  But you cannot protect reality by making a boogey man out of consciousness.  Consciousness is nothing more than man’s natural ability to conceptualize his environment; to make a conceptual distinction between “Self” and “Not Self”, and to act in service to Self as such an ability necessarily implies.  This is the root of man’s very identity…it is WHO HE IS.  To banish consciousness in the name of “Objective Reality” to the realm of absolute illusion is to strip from man everything that makes him what he is.  To claim that consciousness is subjective and reality objective is to dig an impassable chasm between man and his existence, which necessarily destroys man.  Thus, the Objectivist/Empiricist solution it seems is to eliminate humanity in the interest of protecting reality.  But then, who shall be left to declare the victory?  If there is no one left to experience reality, then is reality actually real?  If there is no one left to know anything objective, then is there really anything objective to know?

The fact is that whether we like it or not reality IS indeed subject to interpretation.  Man’s ONLY means of ascertaining truth is through his consciousness…his powers of conceptualization.  He pairs concepts to create meaning, and from this we get language, and language is how reality is declared as BEING REAL in the first place.  Period.  Reality and man’s ability to describe it through conceptualization, which is the foundation of consciousness, are utterly inseparable.  In order to perceive reality, you see, perception MUST BE REAL.

The only way then to arrive at an objective definition of reality is to make sure that its interpretation is rationally consistent…that is, organized and described via concepts (in language) that do not contradict.  The difference between objective and subjective reality is not perception, but IS INDEED INTERPRETATION.  Having the right—that is, absolutely reasonable—interpretation is what makes reality objective, not disparaging consciousness as a mere fluke of natural law (i.e. scientific determinism, which is a nonsense rooted in a philosophy that predates the nonsense of most of the religions it pretends to depose).

You show me a rationally consistent, non-abstract (i.e. non-mathematical) description of reality and I will give you a mirror and show you what a TRUE Objectivist looks like.  A true Objectivist uses his consciousness OBJECTIVELY—that is, rationally—he does not pretend it is a figment.  After all, a seeker of the truth doesn’t throw away the only tool by which the truth is found.

END

# Man’s Identity is Not a Matter of Science (PART 2)

The previous article understandably warrants an explanation of the observer’s physical form, and how it can be rendered rationally distinct from the Self of the observer (i.e. Man qua Man/the Individual qua the Individual—the state of singular consciousness).

[Note:  Assume that a reference to the observer is a reference to man…as opposed to God, who indeed may be considered an observer, but who possesses his own unique metaphysical characteristics which aren’t particularly relevant to this article.]

The body, though I submit is corollary to the Self, is not ostensibly absolute, but rather empirical…that is, observable, where the Self is not, because nothing absolute can be observed, only reasoned.  (The Self certainly can be proven to exist, but not by using an empirical standard, but rather a philosophical one.). The observer’s body clearly exists, but is not absolute; it is relative to other bodies and objects.  The Self, however, being absolute, is not relative.  It is constant.  And thus, here I have already asserted some of the differences between the Self and the body which belongs to and empirically represents the Self in the environment (i.e. the universe on the whole).

Again, the Self is absolute, having no empirical form…no physical beginning or end.  The human body we can observe as being born and dying—as beginning in a specifically and empirically defined form and likewise ending.  Though we may speak of “ourselves” as one and the same with our bodies in common parlance, and as being born and later dying; as coming into existence and leaving it; as not being, then being, then not being, again, the philosophical truth is that the Self—that absolute essence of man BY WHICH the distinction between “I” and “other/everything else”  can be made in order that the universe and the reality therein may be referenced TO a CONSTANT—contains NO frame of reference for a beginning and/or an end; a birth and a death; not being, being, and then being again.  And further, we must include one’s body as part of the “everything else” which is distinct from the absolute singularity of the Self.  To me, the proof of the spirit/body, or consciousness/body, or mind/body dichotomy is the empirical reality of the body as an object which is relative to other bodies and other objects, and the necessity of a Constant so that those objects, including the body, which absent the Self are utterly relative, can be referenced and therefore defined.  That is, be given their own specific reality and existence by being NAMED according to the observer, whose essence is the Self.

*

Neither one’s birth nor one’s death can be experienced, because one who IS, according to his essential absolute Self, possesses no frame of reference for NOT IS.  BEING, itself, at its root, cannot experience NOT BEING.  What IS cannot transition to or from an IS NOT.  We claim that we are born and therefore must die (where “we”,  or “I”, is most commonly made the equivalent of the body instead of the Self) because these things are observed empirically, as though empiricism is the plumb line for truth, instead of reason.  Yet none of us can know birth or death—that is, BEING as a function of the ABSENCE of BEING—except by second hand observation, and cannot EVER experience the absence of being because we simply have no frame of reference for it.  It is infinitely beyond our existential capacity to know.  Ironically to some degree, birth and death do not technically meet the definition of “empirical” because there can be no DIRECT observation nor experience of them; they cannot physically/experientially EXIST to us.  And yet we speak of them as though they are indisputably a matter of fact, even though they cannot be proven true by any rationally consistent STANDARD of fact.  They are neither empirical nor are they essentially rational. They are abstract notions that are useful in some superficial contexts, but they are not in any way absolute truth.

Man simply cannot claim the reality of his existence in an unaware state, because it is only by awareness that he can make any claim at all. There is no such thing as pre or post conscious man.  “Man”  by any rational physical or philosophical definition, even using the “objective empiricism” of science, implies OBSERVATION, period.  Man is categorically the observer in his essence, never the observed.  He is therefore not a thing of science, but the author of it.

*

Unconscious natural laws cannot beget man’s mind…his consciousness, for the simple reason that they do have any frame of reference for it.  Consciousness has no meaning to that which is entirely unconscious—these laws cannot create what is mutually exclusive of them.  Further, in such a case, where man’s mind is a function of natural law, man could never devise any notions like “birth” or “death” because he, being a function of the absolute and INFINITE process of natural law, could not concieve of anything like an ENDING to what IS—that is, his own essence….his Self.  Perpetual natural law must create only that which possesses its own perpetual frame of reference.  For man to thus even THINK (his thinking a product natural law according to science) about a beginning or an end to himself contradicts the very root of the INFINITE and ABSOLUTE processes of natural law.

However, the Consciousness, or the conscious Self, CAN create the ABSTRACTION of natural law, because it—that is, the Self, that is, the observer—serves as the reference for the otherwise utterly relative objects in the environment which he observes.  And by his infinite conscious reference, he can create any concept he likes to describe this environment, even a “beginning” or an “ending”, because this is precisely what the Self, being the source of conceptualization and consciousness, DOES.  It abstracts, giving meaning and purpose to the otherwise purposeless, meaningless, and utterly RELATIVE environment in which its body resides.

The meaning and purpose of all things is a product of conceptualization…indeed, the declaration that a thing IS is a product of conceptualization.  This ability of man, unique to him amongst all living things, is why he claims consciousness.  The ability to conceptualize, which I submit is the fundamental essence of man’s identity, declares what IS, and thus declares what IS DOES, including “being unconscious”.

Consciousness implies the ability to conceptualize (and vice versa), and conceptualization, in order to be relevant and meaningful, implies reason, which is simply the non-contradictory integration and combination of concepts in order to form TRULY meaningful ideas.  And it is from reason then that we get truth, which is the rational definition of what IS and what IT DOES.  From truth we get ethics.  Ethics is simply the designation of what IS and what IS DOES in terms of meaning—meaning at root implying morality, which is the purview of ethics.  Another way of saying this is that ethics describes the essential MEANING of what IS and what IS DOES.

Which begs the question:  Means to whom?

And thus what we are really asking is:  What is the MEANINGFUL reference for the TRUTH of those things which are said to exist?  In other words, who makes truth true and meaningful?  Moreover, assuming that science declares objective truths regarding nature, to whom does it owe its objectivity and its truthfulness?  By what reference is the reality it describes rationally and meaningfully real?

The answer is the observer.  And the observer is I.  It is You and Me.  It is the Self.  Man qua man.

END.

# Man’s Identity is Not a Matter of Science (Part One)

Obviously science is useful…clearly its efficacy is there for all to see, for thousands of years. But science can only describe that which is observed, it cannot describe the observer.

The importance of this cannnot be overstated.

Without the observer, there is no frame of reference by which to describe reality scientifically. That is, absent the observer qua observer (i.e. the observer not described and defined by the very scientific processes he is observing) the question begged is: to what or to whom can we reference the machinations of the universe which are said to be governed and defined according to the processes of natural law? Absent the observer, how are all object actions and interactions not infinitely relative? For example, does the earth really revolve around the sun in a universe which has no fixed boundary unless there exists an observer to say it is so, with respect to the needs and the expediencies of HIS vantage point?

The answer is no, it does not.

And neither does the sun revolve around the earth.  The relationship between sun and earth is infinitely relative. Absent the observer, there is no fixed location of ANY object in a universe which possesses no fixed boundary.

I submit that the only non-relative entity in existence which thus can serve as the reference for the (otherwise) infinitely relative movements (action/interaction) of objects in the universe is “I”.  That is, the sense of one’s utter Self…the IS of You and Me…the Root of one’s being. Self. This is the only immovable, fully absolute existing Plumb Line to which all scientific laws can be referenced, and thus it is the Self of the observer by which these laws receive every ounce of their relevance. Absent the Self-aware observer, it is impossible that scientific truths can be known, and therefore impossible that they be called true. That which is not known cannot be declared true—for it cannot be true if it is not true TO a CONSCIOUS reference; if it is not true TO ANYONE, then such a “truth” is wholly irrelvant…which, “irrelevant truth” is a contradiction in terms. A truth which can never be shown nor proven nor applied TO ANYONE is simply a truth which is not true.

And it is the observer, and only the observer, who knows and declares and applies. Truth is Knowledge and Application (relevance), and both of these are a function of the observer, period.

Science, then, if it is indeed true and also contains truths, is thus necessarily a function of the observer, and not the other way around. It is not a matter of discovery, but description. That is, scientific law is not found, it is created…by the observer. The conscious observer, by his powers of conceptualization and therefore language, rooted in the “I” of Individual existence, creates scientific truths from reason. He defines, in rationally consistent ways, to and from himself, that which promotes himself…that which is for himself, so that he may promote his own existence and his own root existential Truth, and absolutely so, according to the (utterly reasonable) metaphysics which demand him. A law of nature, then, devoid of the reference of the observer, is not discovered, as though an ethereal and transcendent natural “process” which resides in some utterly theoretical inky black nothingness beyond and ironically exclusive of man and his universe creates some kind of meaningful relationship between the completely relative existent objects in that universe. The observer, by the reference point of Self and by his powers of conceptualization and language, percieves his environment and gives definition and meaning to the relative relationships between and amongst his body and all other objects which act and interact with each other in that environment. Because of the observer and his absolute and immovable frame of reference of Self, the relationship between objects and all of their infinite parts is utterly relative no more, and thus can now be named, defined, and given purpose. The observer makes nature true, not the other way around. Indeed, the observer creates like God, or as God, perhaps…he by his nature brings into being a universe which otherwise cannot exist, because it can possess no Truth apart from him. And that which has no Truth can likewise have no existence; to say that something IS, which is the sole convention and prerogative of the observer, is the most fundamental truth claim of them all.

# You Pay for the Protection of Political Correctness with Your Life (PART 2)

I submit that political correctness is unabashedly spawned from the substrata of collectivist metaphysics.  It claims to defend the civil rights and emotional integrity of “underrepresented” and “disadvantaged” groups…and this implicitly beyond, in spite of, and, at root, INSTEAD OF the principle of Equality Under the Law which the US Constitution guarantees for all of the nation’s citizens. So…already we seem to have something of a paradox going on here. Let’s unravel it.

As soon as it is claimed that one group (or more) is “disadvantaged”, it is necessarily implied that another is “advantaged”.  Therefore the only (rationally) possible, albeit perhaps implicit, goal of those advocating for “disadvantaged” groups is to make them “advantaged”, though they will claim either from ignorance or deceit that it is merely “equality” they are after.  But this simply cannot be the case as I will explain.

It’s not possible to have the second (“disadvantaged”) without the first (“advantaged”), so what advocacy for the “disadvantaged” amounts to in the end is merely the reversal of labels.  That is, there is and can be no real interest in equality, but rather in creating a system whereby the “advantaged” are relieved of their property through State-sponsored (“legal”) theft which is then given to the “disadvantaged”, ostensibly to engender social equality but in reality to create a permanently dependent category of voters who sell their freedom and their souls to have their fellow citizens pillaged by the State on their behalf…or so they think.  In truth the plight of the “disadvantaged” never ACTUALLY improves because that isn’t really the point.  In other words, advocacy for the “disadvantaged” is merely a barely-clever strategem intended to grow the Marxist-oriented ruling class into a juggernaut of utterly insatiable authoritarian political power.

There can be no rational speaking of equality whilst there exists any sort of collectivist class baiting, with spurious and manipulative jargon like “disadvantaged”, and this because of the collectivist metaphysical roots of whatever group of citizens happens to be the momentary political pawn du jour.  Because these metaphysical roots are certainly NOT merely political, but existential and as such MORAL, you see.  What I mean is that soon as one group is classified as “disadvantaged”, thus implying another is “advantaged”, we have morally bifurcated the citizenry at the very roots of how we define reality, itself.  That is, we have made our spurious class distinctions into a LITERAL war between good and evil; and this is why there is such ferocious and utterly intractable violence to be found on the collectivist side (the left) of the political spectrum. Collectivist politics make no distinction between a group’s economic value and its MORAL value.  The “advantaged” are EVIL; the disadvantaged” are GOOD…and why are they good?  Well, ostensibly because they are the victims of the political structures established by the “advantaged” in order that they may remain advantaged.  In reality it is because they are the group that the collectivist ruling elite have decided promote the Ideal which they will represent as Its governing Authority.  The “disadvantaged” are the group that promotes the expediency of their power.  This is the ONLY reason they are called “good”. Period. Full stop.

Another point on this idea of the “disadvantaged” as victims of political and institutional oppression, and thus represent the good:

Whether there is any truth to this ot not is irrelevant.  First, because those who advocate for the “disadvantaged” are those who wish to use the coercive violence of the State to promote their OWN political ideals at the expense of certain groups, making them hypocrites; and second because once you collectivize  human beings into groups—as opposed to foundationally judging and defining them as individuals—morality becomes utterly subjective.  To define an individual as FIRST and FUNDAMENTALLY a product of the group is to replace the person with an IDEAL.  And ideals, being purely abstract, can ONLY be SUBJECTIVELY valued.

Further, the “disadvantaged” cannot be made equal with the “advantaged” BY DEFINITION, because these two concepts are mutually exclusive. That is, it is impossible that EVERYONE be “advantaged” or “disadvantaged” because this contradicts these very concepts in the first place. So in order to be rationally consistent we must argue that these distinction are inherently false and utterly illegitimate as a means to describe the people…that everyone should be equal under the law, and that “disadvantage” and “advantage” are labels to be banished from political discourse (as self-serving and manipulative) and that equality under the law is ultimately the only meaningful, relevant, and practical context of each and every citizen as far as the State is concerned.

But this is simply impossible as soon as one claims to advocate for the “disadvantaged”.  You either advocate for equality under the law, or you advocate for the authoritarian despotism we see in EVERY society which has rooted itself in the pernicious class-baiting sculduggery of the bastard children of collectivism (Marxism, National Socialism (Fascism), Socialism, Social Democracy, Communism, and so on).

And so, getting back to the Constitution:

This document does not collectivize the citizenry (at least not intentionally…the inevitable rational and moral failure of the Constitution is due to the fact that it implies the legitimacy of government, of course, but not because of its driving metaphysical principles, which cannot be considered collectivist per se). And since it does not collectivize the citizenry it can neither imply nor confess the legitimate, legal existence or relevance of any particular “class”.  The Constitution, in other words, because it is not a collectivist document, has no frame of reference for the notions of “disadvantaged” or “advantaged” groups.  These are strictly Marxist ideals, and as far as the Constitution is concerned Marxism is a flaming ball of rubbish orbiting somewhere on the far, far outer fringes of reality, somewhere between madness and incompetence.  That is, class distinctions like “disadvantaged” are utter anathema to the Constitution.

Groups claiming that they are doing the “holy” work of advocacy for the “disadvantaged” you will notice NEVER appeal to the Constitution as the basis for rectifying any perceived unfair legal discrepancies between individuals.  This is because A. they don’t acknowledge the root existential legitimacy of the individual in the first place; and B. the Individualist nature of the Constitution means that as far as they are concerned it has about as much to do with rectifying social injustice and managing the disparate economic classes as does a spoonful of room temperature lima beans. They don’t concern themselves with the Constitution because they understand it is an ENEMY of their collectivist assumptions. True “Justice”, in their eyes, is not about the Constitutional rights of the Individual but about who wields absolute power on behalf of the “moral” collective Ideal.  The politics of political correctness are of power, not truth; revenge, not justice; sacrifice to the State, not cooperation among the people.

END (Up next, PART 3)

# You Don’t Have Free Speech and Never Did

ALL governments, no matter the form, and without exception, depend upon the metaphysical presumption that the Individual is a function of the Group, not the other way around.  The Collective, being at root an IDEAL (the People, the Nation, the Race, the Class (e.g. the Workers), the Kingdom, the Church, the Tribe) demands that the Individuals within that group be defined fundamentally according to Group Identity.  And THAT definition naturally and necessarily cannot be determined by the Individual, who, in his SINGULAR metaphysical frame of reference (one’s Individual sense of Self…the reason we all use the pronoun “I”) has no root existential context for the Group.  Thus, a Ruling Class of political elites are put in charge of the Individual, and are tasked with being the incarnate representation of the Ideal and then using a codified system of ethics, known as Law, to compel Individuals into their group identity by force.  Absent this Authoritative Force, there is no Law, and without the Law there is no Collective Ideal which can be practically realized.  And unless the Collective Ideal be realized, it is no longer an Ideal at all.  In other words, Law, if non-compulsory—if optional—is not Law at all.  If the Indiviudal can CHOOSE to act in accordance with the collective Ideal, then clearly the Individual precedes the Collective in the metaphysical context.  The Individual who is free to choose whether or not he acts in accordance with group ethics is not defined by the group, and thus has no foundational collective identity, which means he cannot be beholden to a Collective Ideal…he has no Authority over him to compel him.  And an Individual who cannot be compelled by force into obeying an ethic meant to promote the Collective Ideal is an Individual who is not governed.

To be governed is, at root, to be controlled, you see.  The Individual who is in control of himself then is not governed.  Which means government is fundamentally unnecessary, and cannnot exist, because there can be no way to quantify or even qualify its efficacy in a context where it has no Authority to compel by force.

Based the above, I submit three things are certain:

1. Government is necessarily Collectivist, making the Group the head of the Individual, metaphysically, which means that the Group forms the basis for the interpretation of reality when government is established.
2. Government shall and must use force to compel Individuals into collective behavior, and this by its Authority to represent the Collective Ideal as its practical incarnation.
3. Indiviudal freedom is impossible within the Collectivist Metaphysical paradigm of Goverenment/Authority/Law.  The ethics of LEGALITY demanded by the Collectivist metaphysics of Governemnt preclude CHOICE as the means by which ethics are realized. Obedience is the only means by which the Law can be satisfied.  To claim that the individual is free to choose to accept and adhere to that (the Law) which he is obligated under threat of punishment, all the way unto death, at the hands of the ruling classes, is a contradiction of reason and logic.  Choice qua choice…the ability of the Indivudal alone to determine his own outcomes at a fundamental level, from the place of a singular “I”, contradicts the very philosophical foundations of Government, and this categorically so.

Often, in response to the assertion that all Governments are fundamentally tyrannical because all Governments exist for the sole purpose of compelling the Individual into a Collective Ideal, people will bring up “free elections”. Unfortunately, the idea of citizens deciding who will represent them in Government is a thin veneer of liberty, but contains no real substance beyond the surface. I would think this obvious based on the clear contradiction imbedded in the idea:

We freely select those who shall rule us.

First, who is “We”, pale face? “We”, when we are speaking of how reality shall be organized (sociopolitical context) is a Collectivist term, and specifically rejects the idea of the Individual at the metaphysical root. Second, to vote upon which manifestation of Governing Authority one will obey is merely the illusion of choice.  True choice is not the ability to decide whether one will accept A or B, but whether he will accept A or NOT A, and B or NOT B.  In other words, true choice is that in which the indivudal is not obligated to make a choice at all, so to speak.  Even under “free” democracies, those who refuse to choose (to vote) are nevertheless obligated, by the force of Government, to obey the outcome of the vote.  This is not freedom of choice, but slavery to the State.  The faces of the State may change, but its Authority to compel individuals by violence is constant.

The illusion of choice is the illusion of freedom.  There is no freedom which can exist under the auspices of the Absolute Authority of Government, which exists ENIRELY as a function of Collectivist Metaphysics and which therefore defines Ethics in terms of Legality, not Morality (the Individaul Ethic); and Legality is entirely about FORCE, not Choice…about obedience to the Collectivist Ideal, which is practically manifest as obedience to the Ruling Political Elite.  And that which is entirely about Force cannot, by definition, have anything to do with Freedom.  All the Individual does within the context of a society ruled by the State is a function of not his freedom to choose, but of what the Government ALLOWS him to do.  The Government owns the Individual because it has the power and the purpose to define him according to the Collective Ideal, which means, necessarily and effectively, to eradicate Individuality qua Individuality entirely in favor of the metaphysics of Collectivism.

*

It has been shown that all Empires rise and fall in the same way and in approximately the same amount of time, regardless of their political structure (autocracy, democracy, monarchy, etc.).  This, I submit, is because of the inherent impossibility of combining the false reality of a Collectivist Ideal, practically represented by the State, with the rational reality of the Individual and Individualist metaphysics.  Even here in the United States, which is currently undergoing its own tragic and frankly embarrassing undulations of late-state empire behavior, is not immune from the rational cause and effect of root metaphyscial assumptions leading to inevitable social conclusions.  Which is egg on the faces of all who have lauded the uniqueness of America’s Enlightenment-influenced ideals, and the unshakable moral integrity of its founding documents.  For all of its appeals to the enlightened principles of the Rights of Man, the United States is yet again proving that when we define man collectively, society inevitably collapses.  And I must admit that of all the Empires I have studied, the fall of America is perhaps the most sickly-sentimental, the most self-loathing, and the most cliche…it’s a shameful wad of the worst and most embarrassing aspects of empire decline: gushing feminine sentimentality (every country song on the radio for example and every commercial on TV), pining for “old main street” traditions and in-your-face-flag-waving, insatiable consumerism and life-by-debt, the rampant acceptance of rank idiocy into the public discourse (e.g. daytime talk shows), immigration as a crutch for the rich and the ruling classes, and the plain old boring corruption of the selective application of Law for personal gain…and so on and so forth. And for those of you not convinced that we in the U.S. are not in the least bit unique and are merely yet another Collectivist Ideal on the verge of inevitable collapse, ask yourselves why the U.S. Constitution begins with “We the People…”, as opposed to “We the Persons…”.

It’s because Persons don’t need government.  PERSONS choose; People are ruled.

*

The following is the philosophical process of collectivism—based upon its metaphysical premise—from Epistemology to Politics; and it illustrates why, under government, you do not have freedom of speech (or any other freedom for that matter) and never did.

(an) Idea = (a) Truth (or a proposed Truth); (a) Truth = (an) Ethic; (an) Ethic = (an) Action; (an) Action = Violence (fundametally); Violence = Coercion; Coercion = Legality; Legality = (the) State

I know that this is a bit abstruse. Please bear with me.

From this we can see that ALL ideas are the purview of the ruling class. ANY idea from and by an individual thus is subject to the Authority of the State…because ideas equal actions, and these actions MUST at root serve the Collectivist Ideal; and since the realization of that Ideal is dependent upon Law, and Law is FORCE, all ideas—under the auspices of the Collectivist Ideal which in that reality DRIVE IDEAS—imply force.  And force belongs to the State.

Okay…still abstruse.

Keep bearing.

To allow the Individual to own his ideas, beyond the Law and thus beyond the coercive power of the State, is to invite a challenge to Authority, at the metaphysical level—Individualism—which the government by its nature cannot accept…ever.  To claim one’s speech is free is to claim that the Individual has a right to his ideas INDEPENDENT OF THE COLLECTIVE…that he has ownership, utterly, over his own mind, which is entirely an affirmation of INDIVIDUALIST metaphysics.

A Collectivist Authority cannot recognize an Individual’s ideas, and therefore it cannot accept them, and therefore it cannot accept the Individual speech which expresses those ideas.  It can only recognize ideas which affirm the reality of the COLLECTIVE IDEAL…which doesn’t fundamentally recognize the EXISTENCE of the Individual qua the Individual. It does not recognize the legitimacy of ANYTHING about the Individual—his thoughts or anything else.  Your “free speech” as far as the Collective reality of the Collectivist Ideal is concerned, is, like everything else, something the Government ALLOWS. And what is allowed is not, in itself, free.  It is enslaved.

*

The Collectivist Ideal is metaphysically the ROOT of reality itself, and requires a concentrated, centralized, Authoritative Force (the State) to compel Individuals into that reality.  ALL epistemology (proposed truth; ideas and speech) necessarily implies force as the means by which the Ideal will be served and become efficacious and practical in reality.  All ideas then, from the point of view of Government, can occupy one of only two possible categories:

1. Ideas which affirm the State (Government)
2. Ideas which threaten the power of the State (Government) and seek to replace it with a different version of Centralized Force (new Laws).

And when I say all ideas I mean ALL…from your views on heady subjects like term limits and abortion to what you want from breakfast.  All ideas, when viewed from the position of the Authority which exists soley and utterly to make the Collectvist Ideal THE standard of reality, can fundamentally ONLY mean affirmation or denial.  Period.  Full stop.  The State cannot recognize ANY OTHER MEANING.  Because all other meanings imply individual thought.  What YOU want for breakfast, from the point of view of the COLLECTIVIST AUTHORITY, has nothing whatsoever to do with YOU.  It has ONLY to do with whether or not your idea—in this case, your breakfast selection—represents a challenge to (its) power and to Collectivist reality or not.  It may sound absurd, and on some level absurd it may be, but when the categorical suppression of the Individual metaphysic is the sum and substance of Authoritative Power, it is impossible for ANY idea to mean, fundamentally, anything else.  Impossible.  All that matters is control.  Everything about the State is about control.  THAT’S what the State is.  Governement IS Force.  The two are unavoidably corollary.  There isn’t one without the other.  And thus, there isn’t any meaning to ANY idea that isn’t fundamentally about control.

And this is why speech is not, cannot, and never will be free within the context of Government, its Authority, and its Law.  All speech, like all actions and all thoughts and all ideas, is purely a function of what the State will allow.  And to do only what you are allowed to do means that fundamentally what you want to do or think or SAY is as far from free as east is from west.

END

# When “God’s Will” is a Moral and Rational Catastrophe

Recently some friends of mine made a very significant life decision.  I felt and feel that this decision is a dreadful one…one that places the family at serious risk.  What the decision is is not really important; and they are certainly well within their rights to make it…so as far as that goes it makes no real difference to me.  They can do what they want with their own lives; they didn’t ask my opinion and they aren’t obliged to do so.  I’m fine with that.  I wish them good luck and it’s not my problem.

Except that it kinda IS my problem, because it stems from an idea about God and the nature of reality that implicitly affects me.  Because how anyone in a system under which citizens are obligated to associate with each other—through the coercive power of the State to requisition property—thinks about reality is going to affect his or her neighbor…because it affects how they VOTE.  And to cast a vote is to proclaim a tacit desire to use force to compel others to your personal political ideals.  So…yeah, this problem affects me.

Once the decision had been realized and formalized these friends stated that it was wonderful to see how—and I will paraphrase here—God made it all happen.   God prompted their hearts and then secured the “desired” outcome…and the reason I use quotes around “desired” is because if God gives you the idea and the will then is the desire really yours? Umm…no, it aint. You don’t have anything to do with it.

And now you see the problem.

God did it.  Not them.  It was GOD, you see. It was ALL GOD.  And praise the Lord, because His divine Will has been accomplished.

Oh boy…I mean, where do we even start with this?  This is a terrifying and dangerous way to approach life and define reality.  To punt your own will and choice AND the outcomes into the intellectual abyss of “God did it all” is to position yourself where the ability to conceptualize reality based upon the rational notion of choices and consequences, and causes and effects, is entirely neutralized.  And this ABSOLUTELY guarantees your own destruction, sooner or later, in some form.  The painful outcomes of pursuing rational disaster may be as of yet unknown, but we can be sure of one thing:  those who do not take responsibility for their own actions will come to ruin.  And the intellectual bankruptcy of “God’s determinative Will” also unfairly and callously tempts others to join you in your folly, and your misery, and, perhaps even worse, to promote and disseminate the evil ideas which caused it.

Think about it for a minute.  If God does something…if God controls the situation lock, stock, and barrel, from its inception as a mere idea coupled with the requisite emotional response of desire, to its final realization in manifest reality, then at what point can we—the mere characters in the great and transcendent spiritual (sometimes called the “Gospel”) narrative—make a moral and rational judgment concerning it?  If it’s ALL GOD then how does what we think, and, of equal importance, how we feel, have any meaning at all?  And if our intellectual and emotional judgments are irrelevant in the face of the omnipotence of Divine Determintive Will then how can we know if the things we think and feel are good or bad?  Should we make this decision or not?  And once we’ve made it, should we change course or stay it?

And beyond being destructive and intellectually barren, the idea of God’s superseding Will is just plain old lazy thinking.  Lazy and irresponsible.  It cares nothing for humanity.  The ones who adopt the lie of “God does all things through me” have no real compassion or interest in themselves or anyone else.  They have punted their own moral and intellectual responsibility away entirely.  It doesn’t matter how BAD the decision is, or the practical destruction it wreaks upon one’s life and those around him, because it’s not up to them, it’s up to God.  It’s God’s responsibility to deal with the carnage, not theirs.  And since it’s all of God, who can really say that the carnage is actually carnage? That the disastrous outcomes are really disasters at all?  What do we know?  We see with merely human eyes, and gauge with only human understanding.  What right to we have to judge as evil that which God alone is doing?

If we make a bad decision and the predictably bad consequences manifest, and we have claimed that “God has done it, praise the Lord!”, then we are left with only two ways to evaluate the situation, and both of them demand that the evil continue:

1. The bad is actually good, we just can’t tell the difference thanks to our “fallen” nature and our innate existential insufficiency to apprehend the “truth” of God’s universe.
2. The bad is, in fact bad, but God wants it that way, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened, and thus we need to accept it and stop being so selfish.  Of course, if God WANTS it, then the bad is actually the good, and…see point 1.

And so we stop considering pain, in ourselves and in others.  We don’t use the natural tools we have to determine if what we are doing is right or not.  Once what we do becomes a function of not us, but God, then we are relegated to the status of mere observers of ourselves.  Ultimately pointless…all we think and feel being entirely without meaning.  The pain we feel, or that others feel, stops being a warning to us and becomes nothing.  The love we are to receive and give is rejected for some “higher truth”…some “divine purpose”.  The drained bank accounts, the detached children, the chronic stress of too much to do and too little time, the premature aging and sagging eyes, the added strain on the public purse…it’s all something we hope God deals with, but if He doesn’t, oh well…after all, it’s not about us, it’s about Him.

But friends, if it’s not about us then why are we here? If its not about us then why consciousness?  Why do you utter the word “I” if its not about you?  Why know who God is if you are merely a game piece to be compelled hither and thither by the Great Invisible Hand?  If our choices aren’t our own and the consequences cannot be morally judged then how do we even live?  How do we know what to do and what not to do?  What’s the difference between right and wrong? What IS REALITY?

It’s a void.

God will not be mocked.  He finds no pleasure in you outsourcing your own decisions to Him and throwing up your hands at your own moral responsibilities.  He doesn’t bathe in the false praise of those who will refuse to be their own person and live by their own choices, and accept and manage the consequences thereof.  You WILL reap what your dreadfully facile theology has sewn, and it will hurt.

Your life is YOUR JOB!  It’s not God’s!  What you want and need and how much and when and from whom…that’s YOUR JOB, not His.  God does not micromanage ADULTS; and those who think He does are bound for pain, misery, and perhaps even destruction.

Damn well do it.

The staggering degree to which these terms are conflated, either out of ignorance or a desire to manipulate, is shocking.  As I have mentioned many times on this blog, I was a reformed orthodox Christian for about 35 years, including 15 in the “soft” cult of Sovereign Grace Ministires.  At SGM, when they weren’t busy covering up first degree felonies, like the sexual abuse of minors, they liked to refer to themselves as “reformed charismatic”.  And this I suppose was the first time I became conscious of the great orthodox bugaboo: contradiction as Truth.  Some years after, when I began to ardently examine the doctrinal claims of orthodox Christianity through the lens of rational consistency, I started seeing this sophist tactic all over the place.  I mean, once you learn to find the contradictions, it becomes harder to discern what ISN’T a contradiction than what is.  I mean, name the doctrinal premise—double imputation, penal substitution, Original Sin/Fall of Man, biblical inerrancy and authority, faith alone, pervasive depravity and sin nature, forgiveness, salvific belief, the Holy Spirit and divine enlightenment, Total Depravity; Uncontitional Election; Limited Atonement; Irresistible Grace; Perserverence of the Saints (the five pillars of Calvinism, T.U.L.I.P.), complimentarianism, etcetera, etcetera—and you will find little more than a bubbling witches brew of contradiction and self-defeating arguments.  Once you know what to look for, let me tell you, the circus of Christian orthodoxy is quite a show.

And how does the Christain Ecclesiastic Authority, in whatever Catholic or Protestant form it may take, get away with this?  How do they convince masses upon masses of ostensibly intelligent and successful lay memebers to part with their hard earned resources and make Orthodox Christianity a billions-of-dollars-a-year-racket?  By intellectual make-believe.  Take a contradiction, put it into the transcendent context of “divine enlightenment” and, as Philospher John Immel oft says, “Alakazaam…poof!!”, we get God’s Mystery…the Holy Paradox.  The Holy Paradox being, incidentally, the fifth member of the Trinity, just after “Bible”.

In this article, I’m going to explain the real difference between these three concepts…contradiction, mystery, and paradox.  Understand the distinctions, and I can promise that you will avoid the intellectual, philosophical, and theological miasma that will permanently stunt your spiritual growth.  Contradiction-as-truth is the hard drug of Christian theology.  Break the habit and you will save your soul.

Just a quick note…I’m not going to quote dictionary definitions.  This tired and formulaic approach to academic discourse is, to me, a mark of the untalented and/or uninspired.  I will define these concepts in my own terms within the context at hand—specifically, but perhap not exclusively, the church—in the interest of keeping things more punchy and less clinical.  It’s more fun this way, trust me.

A contradiction is merely the assertion that two or more mutually exclusive concepts are, in fact, compatible.  When we are speaking of ideas, doctrine, theology, philosophy, and so on, you will note a contradiction in some form or fashion this way:

A claim to know that something is true, yet that thing necessarily and/or by definition incorporates two or more mutually exclusive concepts, and predicates its “truth” upon the idea that these incompatible concepts are somehow entirely compatible.  It assumes and expects you to also assume that what are overtly and objectively opposite notions are somehow corollary.  Up is also down; black is also white; the square is also the circle.

Example:

1. Total Depravity:  Man is responsible for his own practical moral failures and yet is born depraved in his nature.  (Incidentally, the oft-responded notion that Total Depravity doesn’t mean that we are as bad as we could be is also a rank contradiction in terms, by definition…”total” does not mean “partly”, but intellectual license is cheap and easy when you can appeal to “divine enlightenment” instead of reason.  Any old dope can claim to “know” things if he doesn’t actually have to explain them.  Telling people that they will understand once they “believe” (meaning when God reveals it to them by magic) is merely saying that they will understand once they agree.  Which is, again, a contradiction in terms.  Like I said…it just never ends.)  That man is BORN depraved is saying that man, existentially, IS evil, and thus in his natural, absolute Self, cannot do any good thing.  This is PRECISELY the argument for why all men need Jesus—-because all men have sinned because why?  Because they MUST sin!  Because of their nature.  Because they are born sinners.  All Good is a function of God’s divine power and enlightenment upon man who is existentially unworthy and, of himself, alone, unable to receive it.  And yet man is morally responsible for his evil as though he can know the difference between good and evil and can choose the latter over the former.  The contraction is this, in a nutshell:  Man IS totally evil, and yet man also responsible for his evil as though he had a choice, which is why God judges him.
2. God’s Divine Will:  All which happens is a product of God’s omnipotence.  Yet man’s consciousness is somehow real and relevant, and that man can know something, like God’s saving grace and his own natural sinfulness.  This is a contradiction in terms because if God possesses ominipotence then all which occurs in reality is either a function of God’s direct causal power or his “allowing” something to occur, which…means the same thing.  Nothing happens that God doesn’t directly control either via “action” or “inaction”.  In this context, man cannot develop an independent self-identity.  All man does is in reality a function of God’s doing, in which case, there is no point to nor possibility of man actually BEING himself.  For “being” is an action, which is not of himself, but of God, because of omnipotence. If man does not possess his own self, then he certainly cannot be self-aware.

Mystery:

A mystery is simply that which is unknown.  It is not, as Christian orthodoxy implies or outright asserts, that which is UNKNOWABLE.  The idea that God controls all things, yet man is morally responsible for his natural depravity and INEVITABLE evil actions; that God is in control of all things and yet simultaneously abhors the evil actions of men and demands sacrificial recompense…these things are not mysteries! These things are contradictions.  Christian orthodoxy labels its contradictions as “mysteries” because appealing to divine mystery is the most convenient way to conflate ideological folderol with God’s infinite wisdom, which, when presented in the context of soaring-if-not-insipid worship music, the histrionics and emotional blackmail of the pulpit, and the navel-gazing desperation of the congregation, can seem quite profound.  In reality, however, it is no more than pedestrian intellectual error of the kind found in the most nascent of human minds.  That is, in children.  It’s pretty sad.  And yet there it is, Sunday after Sunday, and making big money and casting a wide net of social and political influence.  So…perhaps it’s not so much sad as it is scary.

Example (of Mystery):

1. How did the lion escape from the zoo when the cage was closed and locked? (A simple hypothetical mystery.)
2. Why does the sun rise and set? (A historical mystery, henceforth solved.)
3. How does an experienced hunter, tracker, and survival expert get lost and starve to death in terrain with which he is intimately familiar? (A hypothetical mystery which may never be solved.)

A mystery can be that which we do not yet know, which we did not know but now do, or that which only one man or a few men once knew and have taken the knowledge with them to the grave.  None of these things are “unknowable”…that is, the answers to the questions do not exceed the existential and epistemological boundaries of man’s identity.  Man’s identiy as “man”, and all that this naturally implies about his consciousness and cognitive capabilities, are the only frame of reference necessary to de-mystify the mystery.  The answers to the questions may rationally exist within man’s reality and will be defined according to reason.

This is, I submit, the most misunderstood and misused of the three concepts addressed in this article.  “Paradox” is not a synonym for “contradiction”…and yet this mistake has become so common that you find it almost as often as you find someone using the term “literally” to mean “figuratively”.  It’s become part of the common vernacular, and we don’t even bat an eye at the massive distortion in meaning it creates.  Paradox shares absolutely nothing in common with contradiction with respect to its own particular meaning, though it is true that one can be confused with the other based on incorrect assumptions or a lack of or misunderstanding about some amount of empirical evidence.

A paradox is something which can as of yet only be described by combining two or more mutually exclusive concepts, but which nevertheless MUST be true based on empirical evidence.  We might also say that a paradox is observably true, but conceptually false.  We cannot describe what we are seeing in terms that do not conflict.  Paradox, then, is only temporary…for any observed phenomenon can and must only be described in conceptual terms that are consistent.  To leave a paradox to a contradictory definition is, I submit, to divorce man from his own reality.  A reality which does not conform to man’s conceptualizing faculties (his reason) inevitably makes man irrelevant to reality.  The consequences of this are disastrous.  To claim that man can observe something he CANNOT and CAN NEVER describe is to drive a wedge between cognition/conceptualization and perception.  Man then, in the metaphysical sense, as a singular Self—the conscious Self, you you might say—becomes divorced from the determinative  cause and effect of “objective reality”.  Man qua man then becomes an imposter to reality, or at best an illusion…his awareness of Self—that by which he describes and defines “objective reality”  becomes, ironically, a paradox of nature—some determined cause of a determined effect prescribed by the blind and unthinking laws of nature.  The “I” of man—the individuality of the individual—is reduced to an ultimately irrelevant epiphenomenon of the utterly determined universe.  Man becomes a paradox which can have no conceptual solution because he doesn’t really, or at best, relevantly, exist.

And it doesn’t take a clairvoyant to see where this goes.

At any rate, a paradox, in summary, is that which is observed, and thus is real, but as of yet has not been explained in rationally consistent terms.

Example:

1. The wave/particle duality of light.  That light is both a particle and a wave.  For light can be observed in both states, and thus is said to BE both, simultaneously.  As this is a contradiction in terms, we must assume that how light is observed probably has to do with the location of the observer and not with the idea that light both is and is not a wave and a particle at any given moment.
2. That objects exist, an distinctly so, and yet all objects are comprised of a collection of parts, and thus no objects exist, because all objects are comprised of other objects, infinitely so.

END

# Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson: The terrible and fascinating car crash of IQ and moral worth

I know in my last article I said would deal with the difference between mystery, paradox, and contradiction.  But alas, I must detour. Because yesterday I stumbled upon a video that I simply must address.  Thank you for your forbearance.

It was a discussion between Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray, two of arguably the greatest libertarian (I mean ideologically, not politically) social commentators of our time.  (If you don’t know who they are, just look them up on YouTube…you’ll find as much information as you want.) They were discussing, adroitly, as is expected, a myriad of things, among which was the controversy of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and race.  Unsurprisingly, the notion of some races performing better on IQ tests than others came up, and with that, the concern that this information may cause some manner of genetic superiority collectivism to rear its ugly head and begin to categorize human worth based on quantifications of intelligence. That this method of collectivizing humanity is so particularly scandalous seems at first surprising, given that humanity has been collectivizing itself, to disastrous moral effect, for thousands of years, based upon almost any reason at all.  Since any group characteristic can be and has been used to classify humanity into superior and inferior classes and castes since time immemorial, why is this so particularly shocking to heady thinkers like Murray and Peterson?

Well, the reason is pretty straightforward, and you’ve probably already figured it out.  You see, intelligence is a scientifically proven and statistically verified means of predicting future life success, even correcting for race, language, social context, socioeconomic status, and any other factor you can think of.  It has been used since the early 20th century and has never failed, as a general instrument of measure, to gauge intelligence and then empirically verify the results through objective evaluations of life performance.  Put simply, IQ tests are overwhelmingly effective at predicting life success (where “success” is defined according to socioeconomic scales in a given sociopolitical context), no matter who is being tested or where or when.  Okay, not so controversial…so far so good.  But here is where intellectuals and moral men like Peterson and Murray get the vapors, and you saw this coming a mile away.

Which groups, pray tell, score highest on IQ tests?  Asians, Jews, and Whites.  Now, in this day age of rampant, insatiable, and insidious social Marxism in the West, the first two aren’t much of a problem.  But the last one…the Whites…well, to say that Whites are more intellegent than Browns is like saying the Devil is more powerful than God.  The argument that “Jews and Asians are smarter that’s Whites” is irrelevant to the rabid masses of Marxist ideologues rampaging through the West with their bike-locks-turned-cudgels and their Malotov cocktails, both literally and figuratively.  The fact that a white person is more intelligent than a brown person on average is the problem, and is a fact that must be denied, and is just one more example of Western “institutional racism” and the white man’s inherent existential proclivity towards deception and manipulation and of course his endemic natural evil; and just one more reason white people need to be destroyed en masse. And make no mistake, to marginalize any group by claiming an inherent existential moral deficiency, which is exactly what the left is doing with whites, is to declare the need to wipe them out.  Regardless of what anyone tells you, if you concede the root existential moral failure of a group of people, the only rational means of dealing with them to murder them.  If the white man is evil because he is white, which is a function of nothing more than his birth, then he has no right to live.  If the existence of the white man means that he is inexorably White at his very natural root, and White is evil, then the white man has no right to exist, period.  The logic is clear, it is simple, and it is utterly consistent if we concede the metaphysical premise that Whitness = inherent moral depravity.

Now, as I said, the left explains the discrepancy of IQ between whites and browns on institutional racism, social manipulation, and outright perfidy and mendaciousness on the part of the western “White Patriarchy”, due to the natural depravity of white people, who are born this way.  But see, Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray know that this is not the case.  At the same time, the empirical and statistical evidence cannot be ignored.  The scientific fact is that, on the whole, white people are more intelligent than brown people.  And because it is a fact, there is some concern amongst both Peterson and Murray, that this information will be used by some right-wing ideologues to declare whites a superior class, and, necessarily, to seek to demonize and politically (and eventually, ACTUALLY) eliminate the inferior classes.  Because, well…let’s be honest.  It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.

As a hedge against this kind of argument, Peterson quickly, and rightly—for morality obliges him—points out the fact that the level of one’s intelligence does not determine the level of his moral worth.  And “moral worth” means the value of an individual’s life qua life…of their root existence.  And with that, all the controversy dissolves into mist, right?  It seems logical, after all.  Only a fool would deny such an obvious assertion.  How much your brain can do has no bearing how good you are as a person.  And…well, this is true.  I’ve no problem asserting that as an axiom.

But here is where it gets messy, and here is where I DO have a problem with the assertion.

Both Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray know that this is true, but they do not know WHY it is true.  And this is where it gets so, so interesting to me.  Because there is nothing more fun and fascinating than watching men who are geniuses in their fields venture into intellectual areas where they are so very clearly NOT geniuses.  Whilst there, they make some observations, and then never, ever address the gaping rational errors behind their ideas.  They talke about IQ and morality, utter an axiom, and then never address the problem of their premises not actually leading to the conclusion that the axiom is in fact axiomatic.  And you can hear the uncertainly in their voices…the cold, sharp claws of that thing digging into their brains telling them that no, it is not actually resolved at all.  That they haven’t any idea how to handle this.  And why?  Why?  They don’t know…it’s a big blank space.  Nothing is there…but is that because nothing is there, or something is there and they just can’t see it?  The axiom is clear:  Intellgence doesn’t define your moral worth as a person.  This is so intuitively true.  And it IS true….so why the hesitation?  Why is there no satisfaction in asserting something so true?

I will tell you why:

Peterson and Murray’s declaration of the truth that intelligence is exclusive of moral worth flat out contradicts their assertion that IQ is, in fact, an objective measure of objective outcomes. Because you cannot have it both ways.  You cannot divorce intelligence from morality AND claim that intelligence has objective VALUE.  Because value is, itself, at root, a function of morality…it is a matter of ethical truth, not epistemological truth.  To claim that something is objectively useful to reality, in some context or another, like, for example, the prediction of one’s socioeconomic performance via intelligence levels, is, in fact, a claim of objective moral worth.  In other words, to say that intelligence is objectively useful to man is to imply that it has value.  And value judgements—the degree to which something is good or bad, which can also be rendered as “useful or degrading”; “helpful or harmful”—are judgements at root of morality (meaning, they fall into the philosophical category of ethics, which deals with the distinction between what is good and what is not).  If high levels of intelligence are objectively useful to objective success then high intelligence must be said to be objectively GOOD.  Which in turn must mean that low intelligence is objectively BAD.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the rub.  You cannot divorce the “OBJECTIVE usefulness” of high intelligence from the “OBJECTIVE morality” of high intelligence.  The fact that having high intelligence produces “objectively” good outcomes for people and societies means that the people who possess high intelligence must be morally superior to those who possess low intelligence. If, of course, you accept the premise that the “success” intelligence predicts is objective. Which I promise you Murray and Peterson do.

And THAT is the nagging, gnawing thing in their brains which torments them.  They know, somewhere inside, that this must be the case (that intelligence = moral value) but the abomination of such an idea offends, and rightly so, their sensibilities as good and honest and kind and empathetic men, which they clearly are.  They know there’s a monster in the woods, but they have never seen him, so can they be so sure?

The answer is: Yes they can.  But I promise you that they will not like the reason.  They will very likely not and never accept the reason…so it goes.

The truth, which reconciles the moral dilemma, is that the “life success” which intelligence predicts is, in fact, not objective at all.  And this means that intelligence is nothing more than a character trait, which, like skin color or the size of one’s nose, may or may not have any meaning or value to the individual, his life, or reality.  Intelligence, you see, being divorced from morality, which it must be in order to avoid the  very real ethical dilemma Peterson and Murray discuss (valuing an individual according to his intelligence) doesn’t really have anything to do with knowledge, and I mean in the philosophically primary sense.  Because the knowledge of what IS is inexorably bound to the knowledge of what is GOOD; and furthermore the knowledge of what IS and is GOOD is only relevant and therefore objectively meaningful if it drives behavior.  Since IQ does not and cannot incorporate the relevant knowledge of objective truth corollary to objective moral truth BY also incorporating actual observed objective moral behavior, then intelligence indeed has NOTHING to do with one’s moral value. This being the case, intelligence is not the equivalent of what we might call “wisdom”.  And wisdom is where the Truth is.  Wisdom is knowledge, and the knowledge of what IS includes the knowledge of what IS GOOD, and is made manifest—made REAL—by one’s actions.  Wisdom is really all that matters when it comes to OBJECTIVE success, I submit.  And by that I mean, success absolutely, existentially, forever and ever.

See…I told you they wouldn’t like the answer.  In fact, I’m willing to bet that you don’t like it either. Which one am I?  A fool?  Deluded?  Possibly both?  Lol…I take no offense, dear reader.  Correct me where I stray, and if you cannot, then accept it.  Those are your only two rational choices

Here is my point in summary:

“Intelligence has nothing to do with one’s moral worth” is the assertion made my Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray, and it is a correct assertion.  What this means is that intelligence doesn’t have anything to do with morality, in general, at all. Intelligence, in other words, having nothing to do with man’s moral value, cannot itself have any moral value, because MAN provides the only rational reference for morality.  MAN decides the value of intelligence, not the other way around.

What DOES have something to do with man’s moral value, and incorporates morality, itself, in general, is knowledge of the Truth, or Wisdom. Because wisdom is the understanding of Truth and it’s corollary, Good, and is made REAL and meaningful through man’s behavior.  How do we know whether or not a man has moral worth, or to what degree it is?  Watch his actions and gauge them against objective morality…objective morality being that which references the individual, and thus does not violate his sanctity.  Does not kill him, steal from him, lie to him, abuse or threaten him.

Intelligence then becomes a subjective predictor of success, which makes the success which it predicts necessarily subjective also.  In such a case we are forced to consider intelligence, again having nothing to do with morality, as little more than a character trait which may or may not have any actual value, depending on the individual in question.  It may have value, if one’s definition of his success is that which intelligence can predict, but OBJECTIVE success—that which is manifest by the implementation of wisdom—is not a function of intelligence.

END