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

Let’s discuss Option A and Option B.

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

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

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

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

This of course makes the observer…

Well, wait…let’s define “observer”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is…depressing, really.

*

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

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

Moving on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As my readers probably already know, I do not concede that time is actual, but rather is a product of man’s conceptualizing brain, by which he organizes his environment in service to the survival, comfort, and propagation of his SELF.

In light of that, I will tell you that the answer to the question posed in the title of this article is:  it is an irrational question.

The meaning…the definition of TRUTH isn’t one of cause and effect; that is, it is not  “Does existence cause consciousness or consciousness cause existence?”.  We waste MUCH time arguing “truth” from the assumption that it must somehow be a direct function of ideas man pulls from the ethereal recesses of his brain in order to conceptually organize his universe.  The idea that something which cannot be rationally argued to actually exist, like time, which cannot be observed apart from any material object, thereby requiring the existence of the object “first” as an abject requirement for time to have any rational meaning or purpose…yes, the idea that that which is not materially actual is somehow causal is ludicrous.  Further, since man is required in order to create the concept of time it would appear that those of us–which is almost all of us on earth–who concede the causality of time must somehow explain how time can be a causal force of man’s existence retroactively.  (NOTE:  Forgive me…since language is abstract in and of itself, I am essentially forced to use temporal concepts in making my arguments.) Meaning, man must exist before time can be devised by his brain; and then once it is devised by man’s brain we then must explain how it could have had a hand in man’s material creation, such that “before” man existed, this this and this other thing must have happened “first” in order to effect man’s existence; again, as though creation of material reality functions according to an external temporal force which cannot be directly observed thereby making it (time) existentially exclusive to what is material, which precludes its ability to effect material reality…and yet, all things happen according to “cause and effect”, which is merely arguing that time is somehow causing the movement of what materially exists which in turn effects the manifestation of material objects we now observe in our universe, including ourselves.  Meaning, what these objects are is a direct function of the interaction of material objects in a process that is absolutely dictated by time.  The argument, boiled down to its logical premise is this:  Time (not God, not leptons, fermions or bosons, not electromagnetism) allows, utterly and absolutely, for the manifestation of material reality.:  This must happen first, and then this, then that, and eventually you arrive at that.

Seems logical, but the problem is that there is simply no way to rationally argue it.  By cursory reason and appealing to simple, logically reconcilable assumptions and conclusions I can, I assure you, dismantle anyone’s argument for the actual existence and causal properties of time.  I don’t care how man Ph.D.s you have or how great your calculus is or what seminary you attended.   I’ll go right now.  Anywhere, anytime.  I defy…I double-dog-dare anyone to rationally argue for the existence of time apart from man’s conceptualizing brain.  I’ll go anywhere, anytime at my own expense and debate you for free.

Anyway…

Since we cannot observe time directly, as I said, it is impossible to argue its causal power, let alone its existence.  What is time absent the objects we observe?  It has no rational definition.  It is, well…”time”, and “time” is not a rational definition of “time”.  That’s what’s known as a circular argument, or appealing to the idea as proof of its own efficacious meaning.  That doesn’t work.  It’s the same reason the “biblical inerrancy” crowd is so fucking scary and insane: they do not appeal to reason as the basis for their truth; rather, truth exists in the “talisman” properties (John Immel) of the Bible.  It is inerrant because it is the Bible.  It is true because it is the Bible.  It’s truth is nothing more than its name.  It’s relevancy is itself, nothing more.  And you must try to fit yourself into its absolute fortress of inerrant truth.  It’s true because it is itself, without you, and so what the fuck does the Bible need you for?  It is insanity like this passing for “faith” which is why Christians are so scary to the rest of the country.  They are becoming terrorists before our very eyes and the worst part is that they are utterly blind to it.  They have conceded that their very existence is wrapped up in the causal power of some abstract “truth” which is utterly exclusive of man and thus needs nothing of his existence.  The greatest moral good in such a case becomes human death.  And bring on the Marxist slaughtering hoards (Khmer Rouge among others), the Nazi purveyors of cooked human flesh, Islamic terrorist shitheads, and the cult of death known as the American neo-Calvinist movement which IS protestantism in the country these days.

Anyway…

Try to explain time without a reference to the material universe.  I assure you it is impossible.  You cannot even make a mathematical argument.  For as soon as YOU open your mouth or tap on your keyboard or pen your letter or pick up your can and string you have already conceded the contrary argument.  YOU, a material agent, are required to explain time.  YOU must exist first, before time can have any rational meaning.  Thus, the material reality which we attempt to argue is caused by time is a prerequisite for the relevant meaning of the concept altogether.

Whatever…my point is that the simple concession of time as an abstraction resolves MANY “paradoxes” which Christians and others assume is part of the “mystery” of God/universe and therefore unexplainable by man, nor attainable by his intellect.

It is useless to make ANY truth utterly dependent on the actuality of human conceptual abstractions.  As soon as we realize that human material presence is required for concepts to serve any efficacious purpose, we realize the futility of such ideas of “truth”.  To argue that this philosophy is superior to that because it more closely adheres to human abstract conceptual thinking is, itself, a fatally flawed presumption.  Since concepts are not REAL any philosophy which depends on them for its “truth” will never actually be true.  Truth is NOT a function of which process or manifestation of reality must precede this, or succeed that, but is only a function of reason:  an understanding of the nature of reality absent any inexorable, inseparable link between human cognitive concepts and what actually IS, tangibly so.

Reason, I submit, is not tethered to conceptual abstractions…on the contrary, if reason is a slave to man’s abstract, psychological notions of how he happens to cognitively organize his surroundings, then it cannot be reasonable at all.  To argue that the universe is caused by a force (time) which MUST be existentially exclusive of it, which has NO observable manifestation whatsoever apart from material reality, and has no relevant definition nor purpose until AFTER what it supposedly caused is already in existence…people, this is not reasonable.  Rather, it is inextricably ridiculous.

And this is why I hate the question I pose in the title of this article.  Reality is NOT a function of cause and effect.  The idea of cause and effect ultimately relegates all of reality to the power of time…an abstract concept which cannot be argued to possess any causal force over anything at all, but only retains relevance as a means by which man cognitively organizes his environment for the purpose of survival.  It isn’t a debate then about whether existence causes consciousness or consciousness causes existence, or which comes first.  There can be no rational debate because once we inject “cause” into the argument we have conceded a faulty determinist philosophy; that is, we and everything else are all a function of the unseen and unknowable force of time.  Which makes anything we argue moot by definition.  We are all a direct function of the absolute power of time nothing more.  And then we all go home and watch TV, because life isn’t real anyway.

The real issue is getting the definitions of each right,consciousness and existence, and understanding the nature of each as a rational extension of a rational understanding of reality.  The ability of man to materially exist and the ability of man to be conscious proceed from the IS of man’s infinite and absolute being. Consciousness and existence are both equal and direct functions of man’s material SELF.  Existence isn’t a concept which is causal any more than the concept of time is. Material reality, that is the actual SELF of man is the direct source of BOTH consciousness and existence.  Another way of arguing my point is to state it this way:  man’s material SELF, the IS of his being, is his ability to be conscious, which is his ability to devise a rational and efficacious concept of existence in order to describe his relationship to other agents and objects.

SELF = existence because it also = consciousness.

In part one of this series we were looking at a couple of Zeno’s paradoxes–a temporal dichotomy paradox and a distance paradox–and I was applying Einstein’s coupling of space and time (each as a function of the other) to dismantle the apparent contradictions.  As you may also recall, the explanations were loquacious and gratuitous, and you may or may not have gathered exactly how I arrive at my overall point:  location is not a function of distance traveled, but is a relative function of the amount of existence  of one object or agent compared to another, and this is accomplished because increased speed results in decreased time, or “age”; that is, the paradoxes were resolved by explaining that the object which is in motion ages less relative to the object which is static; or the faster object ages less relative to the slower object, depending on which paradox is in question.  This means that it is possible for the “paradoxes” to be resolved (for there is no “infinite distance”; nor is there any “infinite time”)  by the object which is moving or moving faster.

In other words, since time isn’t the same for the two objects being compared in either paradox, there is, in fact, no paradox at all.

See what I mean?

Long-winded and not a little confusing.

Thankfully, we don’t need to rely upon Einstein to resolve these interesting, though ultimately false, Greek paradoxes.  Why?  Because we have reason here.  And truth is never rooted in abstract theories like Relativity, which in fact irrationally confirms the existence and causal power of what are wholly abstract concepts (like space, time, distance, acceleration, etc.); rather, truth is always rooted in consistent philosophical premises which are inexorably tied to a rationally explained, consciously observed and OBJECTIVE standard of TRUTH.  That standard is, of course, individual human life.  Any other standard must be false by definition, because existence of the individual SELF is the absolute and inexorable and infinite prerequisite for anything being being understood, observed, believed, thought or conceded (or the opposite of those)…anything by anyone.

So, for the purposes of metaphysical and epistemological truth– which unlike physics and mathematics is of the non-abstract variety–we can toss Einstein’s theory of Relativity and its requisite calculus out the proverbial window.  I merely used those two paradoxes in the first installment of this series as examples of ideas which on the surface may seem legitimately to be at inexplicable odds, but when we apply the TRUTH of individual existence, which is infinite (the infinite IS, the SELF) and therefore is a real but relative existence, we can more easily see how the paradoxes vanish like so much morning mist.

And here Einstein, while his theory fails to arrive at the logical conclusion of his assumptions, at least begins to set the legitimate stage for the reality of all material objects.  He correctly observes that “location” is relative from one object (or objects) to the next as a function of location (space) and time.  However, he fails to declare that all of those ways we qualify the movement–speed, acceleration, distance, time–are not ACTUAL, and thus possess no efficacious control over objects, and his correct grasp on relativity should make this obvious.  But I suppose that if math is how you explain why reality does what it does, and that is your singular belief, then it will naturally be quite impossible to concede this, even if it means the difference between contradicting your own theory of the relativity of movement and being consistent with it.

At any rate, the point I am trying to make is that once we understand and accept that the existence between material objects/agents is in fact relative, we can easily arrive at the logical conclusion that the existence of objects and agents is rooted in infinity.  Meaning there is something inherent to the material object which IS, and IS absolute; and therefore, its ability to interact with OTHER must in fact be purely rooted in relative movement.

This of course begs the question, how can what is infinite and absolute be mitigated in the first place, in order that it can have  relative existence with other objects which can be qualified and quantified via a system of conceptual abstractions generated by man’s consciousness?

The answer to this involves the one thing which represents intellectual kryptonite to many (if not most) physicists and other scientists the world over…something that they avoid discussing at all costs, which is precisely why they are no closer to discovering any type of existential (and thus actual) truth than since the discipline was first unleashed upon the Earth.  And that thing is:  consciousness.

And consciousness means God.

And that of course [sarcasm inserted here] is a completely separate issue from the “hard evidence”, and quantifiable “laws which govern”, of science, which arrogantly sees philosophy as a little more than a punchline, never once realizing that it was philosophers who first substituted X and Y for the apple and the moon, and then multiplied them together in order to explain a “natural law”.

And God is not physics, but metaphysics.  Which must certainly make God a fake, and metaphysics mysticism.

Of course this could not be further from the truth.  When human consciousness is no longer required to know that m(a) = F, and therefore is not required for it to be true, then I will concede that physics is FIRST in the existential chain, not metaphysics.  But since this cannot happen without the person proclaiming thus contradicting their own argument at first utterance, I will rest comfortable in the knowledge that I am absolutely right about this.

But the irony of the whole physicist versus philosopher thing is this, and its actually pretty funny when you think about it:  Despite his best efforts, and those of subsequent priests of the abstract cosmos, Einstein, as I said, and as I illustrated in the previous post in this series, actually comes closer to getting the metaphysics right (existence of bodies being relative with respect to each other) than the Greek philosophers who posited the previously mentioned paradoxes as proof that movement is illusion…yes, it turns out that those sage old men who ostensibly made getting the metaphysics right the sum and substance of their legacy, seem to have decided, in the interest of maintaining the observable irrationality of the paradoxes, that the concepts of time and distance and speed are decidedly NOT relative, but actual and causal.  And if speed and distance and time can only be declared paradoxical with respect to the context of man if they are assumed to be actual, then the invariable nature of their paradoxical existence to man which led Zeno and Parmenides to deny the reality of movement should lead us to do the same.  And further, we should understand that if movement is an illusion than so is humanity and its consciousness as well.

But when we think about this long enough, and assume that material reality is rooted in infinity (meaning that there is no singular “part”, or “particle” which is the root of all matter, and is self-contained and surrounded by space, and yet possesses no dimensions…I have an entire article on this topic alone), then we are forced to admit, I submit, that not only is movement NOT an illusion but it is impossible to concede that anything exists at all, including consciousness, unless we first concede that movement is actual and causal.  Therefore movement may be rooted in the infinity of the material SELF of objects or agents, and thus is relative, but this does not make it illusory.  It is not an abstraction, nor it is a mere concept which is a product of man’s mind.  If movement does not actually exist, then man cannot either.

The only way for what I call the infinite universal material (IUM) which comprises all that actually exists to become object, agent, and consciousness (the prime example being man), then it must move relative to itself.  It must possess “parts” of itself which exist as a function of separate and distinct being.  And if all objects which are ARE, then all distinct objects are equally infinite.  Which makes existence relative…and yet does not render it false.  Because if I am here, and I am infinite at my root as a distinct object/agent from you, who is infinite and who is there, and our existence is thus equal (infinite) then how I got here and you got there can only be explained by movement.  That is, our separate existences are both infinite and yet they are observably distinct (we observe the “space” between us).  I must have arrived here to be me, infinitely, as the absolute context of my SELF, while you arrived there to be you, infinitely, as the absolute context context your SELF.  In both cases, granted, the frame of reference, SELF, does not in fact move with respect to that same SELF, so I can see how anyone who follows the logic to this conclusion might decide that movement is an illusion.  But in order to arrive here versus there from an indistinct initial infinite state (the IUM), I and you must have been placed here and NOT there, which implies movement.  Therefore, the observable fact still remains that in order for me to have a consciousness to observe YOU and ME as distinct and separate, MY infinite non-moving context cannot apply to YOU.  From my frame of reference, I do not move, yes, but you MUST, in order to always be THERE, because you cannot by definition be HERE, because here is the infinite me.  And the converse is true.  I move as a function of YOUR infinite unmoving context, and you move as a function of MY infinite unmoving context.  So, again, it isn’t that movement is an illusion…on the contrary it must be real.  Again, if I am infinitely here, then you must ALWAYS and infinitely move relative to me.  And vice versa.  Thus, and again, this makes movement indeed relative, but not a lie. Movement MUST exist, relatively, when two or more infinite “parts” come into being.

But we must not assume that ALL movement is linear.  In fact, movement is at its root not linear, but existential.  Infinite parts of an infinite source arrive at their particular location–that is, they MOVE there–when the infinite source is observed.

Therefore, I proclaim as axiomatic this: movement  MUST exist when what is infinite is observed.  

And this is where God comes in.  But more on that later.

*

Existence as movement

Like I said, I believe, as a foundational tenet of my philosophy, that movement is not merely linear (directional), but is existential.  That is, the “parts” of the IUM must move in the direction of their own distinct existence first, before any subsequent linear movement and thus interaction can occur.  I would argue that not only is movement not an illusion, but that existence is movement.  It is the movement of the SELF of all material objects, by which they posses the inherent capacity to cause and be caused upon in relative relationships with other parts.  And, as the parts are infinite, the relative movement and combinations of these parts of the IUM are likewise infinite.  An infinite number of infinite selves moving and interacting in an infinite number of ways.  And from this we get the consciousness of man’s mind and the existence of everything in the cosmos.  For that which is said to exist must be KNOWN and observed to exist first; thus, consciousness is required for the IUM to be qualified as existing.

This being the case, I admit that I am arguing that man is as necessary to the existence of what he observes and conceptually qualifies as existing as God is.  Meaning that without the creation of conscious man, the creation of the rest of Creation, which is unconscious, is irrelevant.  And as I have argued many times previously, that which is irrelevant cannot be defined as true; and what cannot be defined as true cannot be defined as anything at all.  Therefore, the creation of the irrelevant is functionally equal to the creation of NOTHING at all.  So, in order for God to have created something that can be relevantly qualified as SOMETHING, conscious and self-aware man is an absolutely necessary part of the creation equation, not merely a superfluous (or totally depraved) component.

Now, some may argue that I am trying to usurp God as the sole Creator, as the necessary “first” cause to all that proceeds into Creation.  But understand that when I proclaim God the Creator, my understanding of how God does this has nothing whatsoever to do with the typically conceded doctrine of “ex nihilo”…that is, the idea that God created Creation out of “nothing”.  This is an impossible contradiction in terms, and there is no way to rationally argue it.  When one concedes ex nihilo, one concedes that all of Creation rests on an impossible contradiction, thus making Creation itself irrational and without any reasonable defense for its existence.  This is the very definition of insanity, and is wholly untenable, and therefore it must be denied; and deny it I most vociferously do.

But contrary to this, I argue that all which exists is a function of what I have called the Infinite Universal Material (again, IUM), which moves into an infinite number of infinite parts which are moving infinitely in relative relationships with each other upon conscious observation.  And this observation is demanded, for otherwise there can be no “creation” of that which is infinitely itself, and beyond that has no other definition.  For that which is infinitely itself precludes all rational or relevant definitions, qualifications, or quantifications, even “existence”.  And again, that which is utterly undefinable and irrelevant cannot possibly be efficacious for anything.  Therefore, its functional meaning and purpose is zero; and its existential essence can only be rationally defined as nothing.

However, when what is infinite is observed (and in this case I argue, by God), then it is no longer infinite, by definition.  It is relatively finite, which means that it now has an actual definition:  that which is NOT God.  This is an excellent start for everything (as well as the only start).  You have the explosive combination which must result in inexorable creation:  The Creator, and that which is able to be Created.  Because God did not create out of nothing. He possesses the infinite ability to create, and the IUM is that which possesses the infinite ability to be caused upon by God’s ability to create.  This innate ability to be caused upon is the root of the existence of every material thing which is.  It is the infinite SELF of all objects.  For example, before the apple can fall from the tree, it must possess the inherent ability to be caused upon by the gravity of the Earth FIRST.  See?  There is a SELF which must be an IS in order that it can infinitely and perpetually be caused upon by whatever else it is observed to interact with.  Before I can see you, you must possess the inherent ability to be seen by me.  And vice versa.  And this innate ability to be caused upon (which results in the ability to “cause” effects in other objects, which are conceptual abstractions at their root…for in actuality, effect always precedes cause, making “cause and effect” purely a conceptual abstraction; or better said, the ability to be effected is the “cause” of everything which exists and their relative interactions)…yes, this infinite ability to be caused upon is the metaphysically absolute essence of everything.

But “NOT God” is not, alone, relevant.  It has a definitive property/definition, but it is not efficacious TO any purpose.  What is required for that is that what is created must A. be consciously aware that it is an existent SELF, which is NOT God, and B. that God is God; that is, God is He who has the power of creation.  And this is done via the ability of the conscious created agent to conceptualize SELF as juxtaposed to what is NOT self.

Enter man.

But it is man who gets to, and MUST, be the one who conceptualizes and thus qualifies Creation’s relevant, functional, efficacious existence, which makes MAN the objective standard of all morality and truth, not God.  Meaning creation was FOR man that man may recognize it and give it its purpose, meaning, and relevancy.  For he is of Creation, and he is also the infinite and singular context of its ability to KNOW SELF, and therefore to BE, which is that from which all TRUTH is a direct derivation.  For without man, creation could not have been made by God; for it would have been a wholly irrelevant act, with no purpose.  And he who can argue that God is the creator of the irrelevant is he who can argue that God is the Creator of NOTHING.  And if God is in fact the Creator of nothing, then by definition He is not the Creator at all.

That’s enough for now…a lot to digest and to ponder, I know.  Undoubtedly I’ve not convinced all of you (possibly not even any of you) that my rationale behind the infinite nature versus relative existence is true.  But this is something I must explain, as much for myself as anyone else.  I am looking for a rational explanation of existence, and this will not happen if conceptual abstractions, like the “laws of physics/nature” or any other determinist philosophy, continue to be the causal power behind what we observe to be real, which must include humanity itself.  If this is true, then so are Zeno’s paradoxes, and the slower runner overtaking the faster one or your arriving at the bus stop on time is purely a lie; an illusion.  We never pass the slow, and we never arrive where we want to go.  The logical conclusion of this is that we never are who we think we are.

Which makes us…nothing.

In our next installment, we’ll examine the rationale behind “elementary particles”.

Yesterday I read an article on Yahoo news which discussed the recent discovery of proof of cosmic “inflation”, which had been a theory (though pretty much conceded by most physicists as true) since about 1980.  Inflation, briefly explained,  is the idea that in order for all of the “stuff” in the universe to be present where it is, in the amount of time it has taken to get there, the universe would have had to expand to something like a trillion times its initial size in an “instant” (however long that is) after the Big Bang blew it into existence.

What I do not want to do in this article is challenge “inflation” insofar as I concede that it is indeed a “real” concept; for I don’t think there is anything wrong with creating conceptualizations in order for us to explain how we observe the relative interaction of bodies.  The problem I have, and the problem I wish to address, is the presumption that these conceptualizations are in fact actual things which are given causal power over the objects and agents which exist (people and stuff).  That is, I take issue with the presumption that “inflation” is anything more than a convenient way for scientists to describe the relative relationship of whatever we concede “happened” at the “beginning”, which was the Big Bang.  Because this is where things go terribly awry in the Department of Reason and Logical Consistency, and why truth continues and will continue to elude even the brightest of our sky gazers and abstract thinkers in the scientific community.  For observation alone cannot produce any truth that is at its root rational, if we want to concede that truth is a function of what can be observed, which I thought was science’s whole fucking bag.  Further, is a gem of irony that though they insist that they rely on observational evidence for the basis of their models and theories, and yet whenever a new scientific breakthrough is discovered and they glad hand themselves and talk about how brilliant they are, physicists are the first to point to the ghosts in the machine as the sum and substance of their discovery.  Things like “space”, “time”, and “gravity”, “expansion”, “inflation” are all pertinent and indispensable components of the discovery, so much so that the discoveries are literally meaningless without them, and yet none of those things is by any means observable whatsoever.  What is observable are the objects and agents which have tangible being, and everything else can only be assumed by the relationship of these things to each other.

And this is a real problem with scientists, I have noticed.  For when they  assume that observation can lead to the recognition of the actuality of what cannot be observed–which are those concepts (space, time, gravity, inflation) humans use to organize their environment–then they have contradicted the entire scientific school of thought, and they essentially admit that they are somehow able to see what cannot actually be seen.  And when you try to call them out on their false logic, lo and behold, they become little more than religious mystics themselves, demanding submission to their superior wisdom and divinely inspired intellect.  The fact that the premises and conclusions are utterly irreconcilable doesn’t really matter.  We are simply supposed to accept their version of “truth” because they said so.  They are the ones who have the divine gnosis, and have been given the cosmic logos…mathematics, which, if you don’t speak it, you can’t possibly access any real understanding.

Funny how understanding amongst the best and brightest theologians and scientists never has to be rationally consistent, which is why fundamentalist Christians and atheist physicists are more alike than they are different.

But some would call rationally inconsistent understanding NOT actually understanding at all.  There is no such thing as truth if what is true contradicts itself.  This should be obvious, but it isn’t.  You can thank Plato for that.

So, the problem I have with the article on Yahoo is really twofold.  First, I take issue with the notion that the universe has a “size” from which it “inflated”; and second, I take issue with the fact that the universe is thus “expanding”.

Now, please understand that I’m not debating, nor am interested in debating the concepts of “expansion” and “inflation”.  As concepts, I’m completely fine with conceding that those may be practical ways to view our relative relationship to the vastness of creation beyond our skies.  The thing with me is that I do not concede that “expansion” and “inflation” are literal things, which have some kind of causal reality, and which exist beyond man’s conceptualizing brain.  In short, I deny that the universe is actually expanding and that it has actual size from which it inflated  because “expansion” and “size” and “inflation” are not things which actually exist.  They are ways of describing the relative relationships of the objects which conscious man observes.  Period.  And what I am concerned about is the utter dismissal of the philosophical contradictions which comprise the foundation of scientific “truth”.  These people want the civil authorities governing directly from the existential “truths” that revolve around their discoveries, much like Calvinists and other mystics do.  But when those whose beliefs are rooted in ideas which cannot possibly be defended according to reason, man is always, always, always the first to be incinerated in service to the greater “truth”, because it is only man who can think.  And since man can think, he is naturally programmed to “sin” (i.e. sinful nature)…that is, he is programmed to ask questions and act in ways that by his very nature will–unless checked by the priests of the primary consciousness–undoubtedly frustrate the perfect truth and goodness of the “natural” order of things; either God’s “will”, or nature’s “laws”.  Fortunately for the Platonist priests who have been divinely given the “grace to perceive” (the Calvinist “elders” who have been enlightened by revelation; the mathematical whizzes who have been bestowed with the cosmic logos to decipher the determinist forces of nature which govern) they can always fall back on rank violence in order to compel the ignorant masses into right thinking and behavior.  This is precisely because of the metaphysical assumptions which are intrinsic to their Platonist philosophy.

*

I submit that the universe has and had no actual size, and so “inflation” cannot really be a thing, and therefore did not happen in any causal sense; rather, it is a convenient concept to define the relative relationship of the universe then to the universe man observes now, with a mathematical correlate that is reconcilable to current constructs.  Further, I submit that the universe, since it has no actual size, and has no actual location to its “beginning”, cannot actually be expanding.  And it is only when this is conceded that any real headway can be made in understanding just what in the hell is really going in the universe, and more importantly, in putting in proper context (thus fostering a real apprehension of) the rational purpose and meaning of man’s conscious existence, and his relationship to the rest of the cosmos.

The problem starts with the simple assumption behind science’s origin of the universe theory, which says: There was no universe, and then there was.

There was nothing, and then the universe existed.

There is no “before” the Big Bang, because it is conceded that the Big Bang was the start of everything.  Which means that that which preceded the Big Bang was, by definition, nothing.

Do you not see the glaring contradiction in terms?  It is so obvious, and yet it has been allowed to grow so massive that we are now too close to observe it.

We’ll get to that in a moment.

Now, I understand that there are some scientists who might concede that there was something “before” the Big Bang, but I blow that off with a wave and a scoff because it is merely subterfuge…a way to either deceive us or themselves; a balm by which they sooth their consciousnesses enough to sleep without the nagging pangs of hypocrisy needling them all night.  And I, as a rank Calvinist for fifteen years (now no longer), know this tactic well.  It doesn’t work on me anymore, whether from a mystic, or a from scientist desperate to prove that the very observation via a consciousness which allows for their understanding of the universe is the very observation and consciousness which is irrelevant to the whole fucking equation.  Nice try, as I like to say.

If there was something before the Big Bang then it can only be assumed to be entirely irrelevant (and I do not mean contextually irrelevant, I mean that it is irrelevant at the root of its existential being…metaphysically irrelevant); and thus, irrelevancy is functionally the same as non-existent, since anything metaphysically irrelevant cannot prove efficacious to anything true; which means that truth does not in any way depend on it, which makes it impossible to prove that that which is  irrelevant is also real.

But if we insist that whatever was before the Big Bang is actually relevant then the Big Bang itself is entirely irrelevant as a beginning event…as a cause of everything.  That is, the Big Bang has none of the causal power upon which physics stakes its entire understanding of the origins of the universe.

Why is that?

Because if we are to concede that the Big Bang had some manner of creative force, and that it indeed marks the beginning of something, then it must be assumed that what is the universe which we observe now–that is, post Big Bang–is wholly exclusive to what was before.  Which means that whatever exists now cannot be a direct function of what was before; because if it was, then what is now would be a direct function of and therefor the exact same thing as what was before, according to Argo’s Universal Truth Number One:  Whatever is a direct function of an absolute IS the absolute.  Any causal power of the Big Bang wouldn’t really cause anything to exist; it would merely represent a relative change of the universe from one form of itself to another form of its exact same, existentially speaking, self.   There would be no actual difference…only a relative difference.  Relative to who?  To the observer.  For the universe would not care if it started out as a tumble weed and then the Big Bang turned it into a water buffalo.  The universe is not conscious of itself, therefore it can observe no alteration to its infinite state of IS.  Only a conscious observer can do that.

So conceding that there was anything before the Big Bang makes it merely an event among many in the infinite history of the universe.  It could not have been THE event that made the universe something out of nothing.

And thus we have the other problem.  If indeed the Big Bang was merely an event in the history of the cosmos, because the “before” the Big Bang is indicative of an infinite source of what exists in the universe, then there cannot be any such actual thing as a size of the universe, or an expansion of the universe.  “Size” and “expansion” would have no actual significance or meaning because the infinity of the universe precludes their rational definitions.  What is infinite cannot expand or grow or shrink in size, by definition.  But all of science’s “truth” is founded upon the idea that the universe is not in fact infinite, but has a beginning in the Big Bang, which makes expansion and size actual phenomenons, not merely a conceptual description of any relative movement man observes. And this is why they may pay lip service to the existence of something which fueled the Big Bang so that it could create the universe, but they don’t actually believe that.  They cannot.  To believe that makes the universe infinite, and that means that all of their models and theories are purely subjective and ultimately relative, having only meaning as a function man’s conceptual constructs of his environment, and not actually possessing any causal “truth”.  Which is, in fact, all true.  And if they would only concede this then they would actually be the smart sorts of gals and fellows they claim to be.

But here is the thing:  It matters not whether you concede the universe is in fact infinite or that the Big Bang began everything and that before there was nothing.  For the logical presumptions are identically irrational.  Everything being a function of infinity renders conceptual ideas like expansion, space, time, size, distance, gravity, etc. as abstract and subjective (relative) as saying the universe had a definite beginning, and that before the beginning, there was nothing.

Let me ask you a question.  What is logically wrong with this statement?:  Before the beginning of everything, there was nothing.

It’s not too difficult to see the contradiction…though, it kind of really is because this is something we hear often.  “What do you see outside?”.  “Nothing.  I looked outside, and there was nothing.”

Well…okay, in common communication the idea is well understood.  Nothing doesn’t really mean nothing.  In this sense, something becomes equated with nothing depending on the context of the situation.  If the person was looking outside expecting to see rain but there was none, he or she may reply, “Nope, I saw nothing happening out there.”  The implication is obviously: nothing weather–wise.  But literally speaking, it is quite impossible to see nothing happening.  For nothing, if it is truly nothing, cannot do anything, by definition.  And the principal thing it cannot do is exist.

Now, the reason why you cannot qualify “before the universe existed, there was nothing” is because we are speaking about the creation of everything that IS.  And given that, there is no way to appeal to a subjective context.  The creation of everything is only ONE context.  The beginning no longer becomes a relative term, but it becomes an actual one. The beginning is not abstract, it is real thing.

And that’s a problem.  There can be no such thing as an actual beginning which is literal and objectively existent because before that beginning there would have to be literally nothing.  And there cannot BE literally nothing because the act of being is in no way compatible to what is nothing, because nothing does not exist.  Thus to say that before the Big Bang there was nothing is an impossible contradiction in terms.  “There WAS nothing” implies that nothing at some point existed in the past. ” WAS nothing” implies that at one point you could have rationally stated that there “IS nothing”.  Which, as I just explained, is impossible.

That is the first serious problem with the Big Bang as a causal event which ushered in existence of everything.  The “beginning” becomes an actual thing; and so does “existence”.  Existence is no longer a qualification of an object it is a metaphysical essence of that object itself.  That’s putting the metaphysical cart before the horse.  An object or agent needs to BE first, before it can be conceptually observed and defined as existing.  Which again makes existence a concept, not a metaphysical root.

I don’t give a shit about the abstract mathematical constructs and the Platonist theories the scientists use to parse what is clearly and in every way a function of infinity (the creation and existence of everything that IS…for IS is infinite, because what IS cannot be a function of NOT, or nothing, by definition).  The way man uses his brain is almost wholly abstract.  Therefore, it is in his “nature” to parse infinity with abstract concepts in order to codify what he observes so that he can make some efficacious sense of it in service to his own truth and existence.  This is fine, and in this strict sense, science does a good job.

But what I care about is the rank logical fallacies of science’s philosophical presumptions and assumptions which inform their understanding of truth.  For when conceptual abstractions are conceded to be causal and literal then the natural evolution of thought is to declare man merely a product of the absolutes of mathematics and natural law.  This removes consciousness from man.  And with consciousness goes epistemology, and with epistemology goes ethics.  Man is seen as valueless, by definition, because the entirety of truth is found in concepts which govern the universe and man from somewhere outside of and mutually exclusive to them both.

But even worse than that is when scientists pretend that they have no philosophy, and that philosophy is itself fully irrelevant (which I think is Stephen Hawking’s position).  That is an outright laughable hypocrisy, whether they know it or not.  One can no more behave apart from philosophical assumptions than a solar car can function in a cave.  Beliefs drive actions, and that includes how we observe our world and decide to interpret it.  If science decides that there is no such thing as metaphysical truth because man’s consciousness is an illusion because it is nothing more than a product of mathematical probabilities and natural “laws”, then that is, itself, a philosophical belief.  And an extremely powerful and destructive one at that.

So, where were we?

Oh, yes.  We were discussing “inflation” and how there is proof that the universe expanded shortly after the Big Bang to something like a trillion times its size; and that ever since then it has continued to expand.

The statement “expanded to a trillion times its size” presumes that the universe had a beginning size.  And the statement “the universe is expanding” presumes that the universe began in a location from which it could expand from.

Hmmm…is anyone else here not quite on board with these presumptions?  I mean, reasonably speaking?

Here’s a problem.  What is the reference for the size and location of the universe?  If space and time where not created until after the Big Bang, then the size of the universe…well, how big is big if the universe’s initial size is a direct function of NO space?  Of NO size?  And from where did the universe start expanding, or inflating, if the location of the beginning of the universe was NO where, because the Big Bang could not have occurred in space?

Do you see the problem now?  How can the universe be expanding from somewhere to somewhere else  if there was no WHERE for it to begin because there was no such thing as space until after the Big Bang?  And how can the universe have a size which can inflate a trillion times if there was no space for it to begin inflating? If there is no space, there can be no size, obviously.

So, science has the unworkable problem of having to rationally explain how size can be a direct function of no size and expansion is a direct function of nowhere.

How long does it take John Calvin to get to the stake which is burning Michael Servitus if he leaves from the beheading of the Pelagian in the court yard of the church?  It takes fifteen minutes.  Okay, so how long does it take John Calvin to get to the stake which is burning Michael Servitus if he leaves from nowhere?

That is an impossible question to answer, obviously.

So, the point is that if the Big Bang created everything which is, then there was nothing before it.  Which means that there could not have been a location to the universe where it could be created from, because space, if we concede that it is an actual thing, did not exist to provide a location for the universe until after the universe was already created.

If the reference point for the start of the universe is nothing, then mathematically we would call that zero.  Which means that the universe, its expansion, inflation, and size and location are a direct function of zero…the wonderfully simple mathematical placeholder.  In philosophy we would say that metaphysically the universe is, again, nothing. Which means it can have no size, expansion, location or inflation, etc. because nothing expanding to nothing goes nowhere; and nothing growing a trillion times the size of nothing is still nothing.

So really, what can possibly be the reference point for the beginning of the universe, Big Bang or not, except itself?  That question is quite rhetorical, I assure you.  The only actual, objective reference point for the universe is itself; which means that the universe isn’t a thing in and of itself, it is whatever observable, tangible, actual material exists within it.  IT, that is, the universe, is nothing but a conceptual abstraction…a “collective” man uses to describe “all that exists”, materially speaking.  And this material is, everything which literally and materially exists, must be  its own reference.  It is the only objective non-relative constant in the universe  It is its own infinite IS.  The movement, or expansion, or inflation of it thus is purely a relative, conceptual way that man, the conscious observer, chooses to define the relationship of the material parts to themselves.

There is no such thing as the universe ACTUALLY expanding, or inflating, or even moving at all.  We have a conscious observer, and we have relative components of infinity, mitigated by that very same conscious observer who, because of his own self-awareness, is able to make a distinction between his SELF and that which is NOT himSELF…that is, the other objects and agents in the “universe”.  Without consciousness, there is no mitigation of infinity.  All such movement that man observes, yes, even for the scientist and his impressive telescopes, is not actual, it is purely conceptual.

And thus if the universe is really the constant reference of itself, then all values of it thus lead straight to infinity.  It is what it is…until a conscious observer (man) can observe its “parts” in relative relationship to themselves.  And when he does this, he is able to organize it into conceptual abstractions so that he can successfully integrate himself  into it.

Why?

For the only reason possible:  to survive.  To affirm.  To perpetuate SELF.  For the conscious, rational man understands that HE is the root of all TRUTH.  That all efficacious concepts start with HIM…with his consciousness.  That it is not the universe which is constant, it is his ability to know SELF.  His consciousness is the infinite prerequisite for any object having any meaning or purpose at all; even to be called “existing”.  Without him, there is nothing but infinite oblivion.  For a material universe which cannot be observed, cannot be known, which means it cannot be qualified as existing.

And it is the ignorance of the necessity of the observer to the existence of anything which makes science great at producing cell phones, weapons of mass destruction, and particle accelerators, but impotent and useless at apprehending truth and explaining the roots of how and why everything is where it is and what it is.  And that is why science is always going to be more destructive than it is instructive.  It is why that with every technological breakthrough, morality stumbles and intelligence plummets.  It is why the supreme realization of scientific achievement has always found such titanic playgrounds, pay days, and advocacy  in the context of war…in the cities and the fields where innocent blood mixes with the rubbish of spent ammunition and leaflets of propaganda.