Part One of book review: “The Emotionally Destructive Marriage” by Leslie Vernick live program link Monday 2.20.2017 @ 12:30
Government is “legal” violence. And what is “legal” violence? Simple. It is the violence necessary to compel the naturally evil individual into the collective moral code.
This “need” for “legal” (read “moral”) violence is predicated upon a false metaphysic: that individual man does evil by existing at all. In other words, to be man is to be evil. The Christians call this Total or Pervasive Depravity. Most other religions have their own labels, but it’s metaphysically identical.
“Obedience to a ruling authority is not, by definition, a choice. Thus, the only way one can legitimately choose government–to freely and democratically elect it–is if it has no authority over him or her. The problem with this is that absent authority government is not government. For what is government absent authority? And what is authority absent the right to use violence to compel behavior? The answer: It is nothing. And to some, unfortunately, this is mere paradox; and this assuming people think of it at all, which for the most part they do not. But to the truth it is the contradiction which makes the smallest government the largest, and the most compassionate benefactor the most monstrous tyrant ”
For now, I will more or less focus on the idea of mandatory voting–government enforced voting, much like government enforced healthcare. But understand that whether voting is mandatory or not does not change the fact that voting in either case is not a legitimate choice. To be forced to choose or to force those who did not choose a certain way, or at all, to accept the outcome of a choice is NOT choice. As I said in part one of this series, once force is injected as a means to compel others into the outcome of a choice, which is functionally the same thing as forcing them to make a choice in the first place, then there is no such thing as choice. Choice is a function of will, and force is the rejection of the will–that is, force is the explicit or implicit admission that will is irrelevant. Force and choice are mutually exclusive. They cannot be synthesized into a single context. One cannot be free to choose if he must choose, nor free to accept what he must accept. That shit just doesn’t compute.
If I am forced to choose between A or B (or C, or D, etc.) then obviously choice is utterly besides the point. That is, to declare that I have no choice but to make a choice is a blatant contradiction in terms, and frankly I’m surprised that the idea of mandatory voting gets any traction at all, anywhere, based on this fact alone. How “choose or get punished” gets translated into “free and democratic elections” defies my suspension of disbelief. Then again, when the underlying metaphysic which dominates humanity is “man must be governed because he is so naturally wicked and stupid”, I suppose its not hard to understand after all.
So, the logic goes: I am forced to accept either A or B–and yes, C or D or E, but for simplicity’s sake let’s just say A or B…so I am forced to accept A or B, of a “free” choice, that I am forced to make.
Hmm…something smells juuuuust a little off here.
The fact that a choice–in this case a vote–between A or B which you are forced to make is purely an imposter of choice is starkly exemplified by the forced acceptance of A or B by those who don’t make the choice at all, as in the United States, where voting for public “servants” is not (yet) compulsory. But, as I said in the beginning of this article, and in the previous article in this series, the distinction between being forced to vote and accepting the outcome of the vote, as in Australia (I think), being not forced to vote but to be forced to accept the outcome of the vote, as in the United States, is a meaningless and fundamentally redundant distinction. The truth is that those who vote have exercised no more real choice for their officials than those who, like myself, recognize the futility of the whole spectacle and avoid it completely. And this I will address more thoroughly and specifically in a latter article.
So, again, a “choice” you are forced to make and which obligates you to an outcome you are forced to obey is not, by definition choice.
To be continued…
It’s an easy win debating Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, and other leftist demagogues. Which is why their ideas should be relentlessly dragged into the arena of thought…engaged and confronted, their failure on display for all but the insane to comprehend.
But at the same time, here is why they shouldn’t be debated:
THEY never actually debate, they scream and threaten and do violence.
They extort, they don’t reason.
They propagandize, they don’t inform.
They blackmail, they don’t explicate rational consequences.
They repress, they don’t encourage.
They virtue signal, they don’t love.
They are violence for violence’s sake. They are death for death’s sake. They are foolish for foolishness’s sake. Their peace is that of the grave; and their only cheer is the fleeting emotional orgasm of the serial killer, the two-bit despot, and the conquering tyrant.
So yes, throw up a wall of reason and goodness as smelling salts for their bromide, a palliative for their abuse, and a cure for their disease. But do it with courage, and prepared yourself for the devil. For the devil is in them.
There are several ways to dismantle the fallacy of “no free will”, or “the illusion of free will”. Frankly, it’s exasperating that this ridiculous idea gets any traction at all, given how obviously irrational and impossible it is. As soon as you assert the notion, you make a claim to truth; but of course if there is no free will, then by the exact same deterministic logic (man’s thoughts are just molecules and particles conforming to the categorical governance of physical law) man cannot actually know anything, which means he cannot know truth, which means he cannot believe anything to be true, which means he cannot make any assertion at all about anything. And even if we accept that man thinks and man makes assertions (which is impossible if there is no such thing as free will…for free will is merely the volitional exercise of one’s knowledge, which is the very definition of “to assert”) there is no way to claim that one assertion, like “there is no such thing as free will” is true while another is false.
There. It took me, a stay-at-home-dad sitting on the couch wearing a hoodie and Carolina Panthers pajama bottoms, one paragraph to dismantle an idea held by physicists from Stephen Hawking to Sam Harris. This ought to tell you something.
These people are being willfully stupid. They are choosing to believe their deterministic bullshit rather than admit that physics is an abstract description, not a recipe for ontological causality. Why? Because they, like so many, prefer power to truth. If they can claim to be the few mathematical geniuses who understand the Language of the Universe, which is just their version of the Word of God, then they can claim their own Priesthood Class. They can exist as the Chosen/Called Ones who are God Incarnate to the rest of us. They can stand in the stead of God and dictate to everyone else, both governments and denizens, their moral obligations, both intellectually and behaviorally; which, pragmatically speaking, means they can tell everyone else what to do with their money.
And I hope you are picking up on the passive-aggression, because I’m laying it on pretty thick.
But let’s, just for fun, because my coffee is not yet cold, elucidate my paragraph above.
The denial of free will is rooted in the argument of determinism. That is, since we are all just a bunch of atoms and molecules interacting and combining according to very arcane and abstruse mathematical rules, our very thoughts, being a function of our brains, are merely the pre-determined side effects of these rules. (And since mathematical rules/laws of physics are absolute and absolutely infinite, everything is these rules; there are no distinctions between the rules and the objects which are said to act and interact according to these rules because everything is a direct and utter function of the laws of physics…in which case, how is it possible to claim the laws of physics actually govern anything? To say they govern themselves is pointless redundancy. )
And this completely destroys the deterministic argument against free will. Because what this means is that there is no such thing as truth. All ideas are equally valid, since according to deterministic protocol all ideas, being a function of brains governed by the inexorable laws of physics, are a function of the same mathematical rules. This being the case, it is impossible to make the claim “there is no such thing as free will, is true” or “there is such a thing as free will, is false” since both ideas are a function of brains governed by the exact same rules. And this is why they must and do appeal to a “superior enlightenment” based upon their elevated mathematical prowess. There is no rational explanation for why we must believe them, any more than there is a rational explanation for why the laity must submit to pastoral authority since both the pastors and the laity are, according to doctrine, fallen creatures and utterly prone to sin and delusion by their very nature.
But the magic wand of Divine Authority is waved, and as John Immel, a philosopher I admire says, “Alakazaam, POOF!”, we all must just accept that “God” has chosen them and thus it is our moral obligation to agree with them…to bend over and say, “thank you, sir, may I have another”.
To make the claim, “there is no such thing as free will” is to presuppose a person can actually know truth. But, again, according to the very argument against free will, itself, there is no such thing as a true thing versus a false thing since every idea is the product of the same deterministic rules. When people are not actually free to learn, because their minds are entirely governed by the laws of physics, then by definition they cannot actually know anything. To learn is to presuppose a difference between knowing and not knowing, and to presuppose a difference between a good idea (rational, or true) and a bad one (irrational, or false). If there is no such thing as free will (the individual application of perceived knowledge…between a true thing/good thing and a false thing/bad thing, either based upon contextual circumstance or upon foundational philosophical assumptions), and all beliefs and actions are merely a function of brains which are all equally and absolutely governed by mathematical rules, then there can be no difference. There can be no real ideas, which means there can be no real thought. Which means there can be no thought at all. Which means there can be no consciousness. Which means that people like Stephen Hawking and Sam Harris cannot claim that free will is an illusion, as though this is some truth that they can actually know, and know as true, and of which they should seek to convince others, as though making the point is anything but a colossal waste of time. Because you can’t convince people out of an idea that they don’t actually believe, and this because they don’t believe anything, because their contrary thoughts are merely the effects of the same deterministic forces which produced yours.
As soon as one makes the assertion, “there is no such thing as free will”, they have destroyed the argument. And because of this fallacy, and the sheer stupidity and rank rational inconsistency and destructiveness of the underlying apologetics, I strongly urge you to reject it.
If God gives man His righteousness (as a gift, so it’s said), then there must be something in man which brings value to God; for who gives gifts to those they hate?
This means that man cannot be utterly evil. In which case, there must be something good, inherently, in man.
This goodness, in himself, of himself, is his own righteousness.
God does not give man righteousness, he teaches man that man is righteous ALREADY.
Let’s break down the rational atrocity of the claim, “Man has no righteousness.” Which just means that man can do no good thing. NOTHING. At all. Ever. Because he cannot transfer ANY righteousness to his actions. Because he has none. Zero. There is no righteousness to waking up, nor to going to bed, nor anything in between.
Think about that.
Can’t you just feel the madness of it in your bones?
If man had NO righteousness…that is, his righteousness was nill, this would mean that man’s very existence is unrighteousness. In other words, the very fact that you were born at all is why you are evil.
A few problems:
If you’re very existence is evil–let’s just call it evil, because that’s what (fake) Christians really mean–then your very essence is evil. This means that everything you do–you think, you believe, you say, you are–is evil. Whether you save a drowning puppy or burn down an elementary school, both acts, proceeding from your utterly wicked existence as You–are equally evil. This means that you cannot actually choose evil. Evil action and evil thought ceases to become a moral choice (which means they cease to become choices at all). Which means that you are no longer in possession of moral agency. Which means that you’re not a moral agent.
And guess what this means for man.
He’s not actually unrighteous, nor is he righteous. The very concepts are irrelevancy to him.
He has neither righteousness nor unrighteousness.
And this means…
He is an animal, possessing only instinct; without thought. He cannot choose good or evil, and thus has no knowledge of good or evil. Which means he has no knowledge, period. Because if man possesses not the ability to choose good or evil, then knowledge is utterly pointless, and lacks any efficacy. And absolutely irrelevant, useless knowledge is not knowledge at all by definition.
Which means that God cannot give man His righteousness as a gift, because:
A. Man couldn’t recognize it in the first place.
B. Man couldn’t know what to do with it
C. Man wouldn’t have any use for it.
D. Man, unable to understand good from evil, couldn’t understand truth from falsehood, and thus wouldn’t know anything at all; wouldn’t see God AS God, and thus wouldn’t take anything GOD had to offer. He might take a scrap of food or a treat from God, like a dog from his master, but he would comprehend no spiritual or moral meaning or purpose; no alteration of his identity in the eyes of his master. He would and could have no concept of “righteousness”, because morality, like truth, has nothing to do with that which is pure instinct.
E. God would know all of this, and so wouldn’t give man His Righteousness in the first place!
Stop listening to people who lie to you! Stop believing those emissaries of death and the devil who tell you that you need God because you are so categorically baaaaaad.
Understand that when they say you have no righteousness of your own what they mean is that you are Unrighteousness itself! You have no value or worth or goodness…as a function of BEING YOU!
This does not promote a relationship between you and God, it utterly wrecks it, and eradicates its possibility! Because what is entirely Good (God) MUST as a function of its existence be completely exclusive of what is entirely Evil (You) as a function of IT’S existence.
The lie that human beings are inherently unrighteous has only one purpose and one outcome:
Tyranny, and Death.
Here is the abortion debate’s fundamental dilemma:
So, on the one hand, the argument is that embryos and fetuses are a direct and absolute function of the parents, who are solely responsible for their existence. Therefore, if this is the case, parents must have the moral right to do with them as they choose. They are a categorical product of the parents’ labor.
On the other hand, it is argued that embryos and fetuses are utterly independent human beings, of completely distinct individuality/agency, and therefore may NOT be treated or considered as being a direct function of their parents, as a product of another’s labor, to do with as they choose, to govern and control, but instead have inherent rights as full fledged individuals.
The whole of the abortion debate is, to me, the fruitless attempt to reconcile this contradiction. Until you resolve this contradiction–which is impossible, by definition–any judgement you make about abortion is entirely subjective. Period.
Either the child is a distinct individual or he is not. He cannot be both. If he is, then it cannot be argued that he has the categorical right to take resources from his parents. He may have that right, but not always. It would depend upon the context, and whether or not a legitimate contact between child and parents can be said to have been established. If he is not, then he cannot claim any inherent right-of-Self and therefore the parents may reasonably and morally do with him as they please, including abortion.
Man must be protected from himself is the argument for government in a nutshell. And this? Is a very bad argument. This sophist rationale is why freedom is never to be found under the auspices of government.
Because freedom which is function of what an external monolith of “legal” violence, like the State, will allow is not freedom. It is, by definition, control. The phrase “that which allows us to be free” contains a fundamental contradiction in terms. Freedom does not and cannot operate under the auspices of threats of violence for stepping out of external, codified boundaries. And to say that these boundaries are what guarantees that freedom itself (in the form of unfettered wicked indulgence by the naturally depraved human being) doesn’t become oppressive is another contradiction, as it makes the restraint of freedom the foundational moral operation; it makes the limitation of freedom the means, so the argument goes, of ensuring freedom. But unless man is able to choose his actions, by not having his behavior fundamentally dictated and coerced through threats of violence should be stray from an abstract, subjective (yes, subjective) legal code, there can be no morality. Why? Because there can be no choice. For if man cannot choose to do good, then man cannot do good at all. And actions which are compelled at gunpoint are not choices!
It is not necessarily intentional. It is not necessarily rank deception. It is most likely a function of the prevailing philosophy regarding the nature of man which has never, to my knowledge, been reconciled to reason…where reason is a place that cannot ever, under any circumstance, accommodate contradiction.
Because of man’s tendency to do evil, so the argument goes, left to his own unfettered (un-governed) devices society must inevitably dissolve into an orgy of tyranny and oppression.
This is a contradiction which nullifies the argument, and renders the practical application of it both impossible to any efficacy and ultimately destructive. For man cannot be both good and evil. What I mean by this is that he who is the standard for morality–for good–cannot also be he who wrecks this standard. He from whom rights are said to be derived cannot also be the one who poses the threat to the those very rights. Man cannot be the primary thing worth saving and the primary thing which jeopardizes that salvation.
Now, of course we may rightly assert that some human beings truly do evil and therefore are capable of harming others, but this is not the argument with which we are presented in defense of government. The argument is that human beings on the whole cannot fundamentally be trusted to exist outside of the power of coercive authority because human nature itself is depraved.
Human beings have the natural tendency toward evil, so it is argued. They are prone to it–not by choice, but because of naturally determined instinct. What this mean is that when presented with the option of good or evil, human beings, absent any external arbitrating, force, will do evil. They must…because they are driven in such an unfettered circumstance by their nature, and their nature is evil. Therefore, human beings must be governed by an outside force–a governing authority– in order to keep their natural evil in check, and to (hypocritically) ensure the existence and perpetuation of the human race by means of a rigid and regulated social apparatus that ultimately dictates all behavior by threatening its denizens with violence should they dare resist its self-proclaimed mandate to control man for the sake of man. And this is the metaphysical and ethical foundation upon which government stands. Go and see for yourself. Ask 20 people why we need government and I guarantee you that 20 of 20 will regurgitate, in some manner, the hypocritical philosophy I just explicated.
This foundational philosophy ironically and certainly inadvertently undermines the oft-trotted argument that government can exist of the people, for the people, and by the people. That is, it undermines–by its inherent and fatal contradiction–the assertion that people are the standard of the law which the government exists to uphold. If people are by nature evil, and this the root of their very being, then it simply cannot be argued that they may simultaneously represent the good which government must protect. On the contrary, if man is by nature evil, and can no more help doing evil when left to his own devices than he can help walking upright, then people in fact represent a singular threat to good. Because their nature is inexorable and absolute evil, they are the antithesis of good. And therefore, people must be controlled, not set free, by an external coercive authority. And this is exactly what they are, no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You cannot claim to be free in an environment where all of your actions are ultimately a function of what someone else says you are allowed to do.
Further, the idea that a government can exist in the interest of a humanity which is by nature evil is to assert that the government is a proponent of evil. This, however, is never the argument for government, because though true, it wrecks the benevolent facade of coercive authority. On the contrary, the argument is always that government exists for good, and that without government, man’s evil nature will reign supreme. And what this means is that it is not man, but the government which is actually the standard of good. The people are not the standard. The people are not that from which moral “rights” are derived. The government is. For the “rights of the people” are irrelevant absent government, because absent government man’s natural evil must subordinate them. The people, then, are not the source of moral dictums, but are the singular danger to them. They are not the value of the law. They are the enemy of it. So they must be controlled.
You cannot legitimately argue that man represents that from which natural moral rights are derived, and yet at the same time claim that he is evil and represents the singular existential threat to those rights, and therefore must be governed. This is to create in man a dichotomy of nature which contradicts and nullifies itself. If man is good, and this as a function of his very nature, then it is both irrational and counterproductive to establish an institution which exists to compel moral behavior by “authoritative” (legalized) violence. For to insist that the naturally good man must be compelled to good through violence is to deny that man can do good on his own, and this denies that his nature is in fact good. And if man is evil, and this a function of his nature, then man cannot possibly be compelled to good, for good is utterly exclusive of his being. To compel him to good is an impossible task. For man, being evil, perverts good, he does not cultivate it. It’s like adding poison to a meal and calling it seasoning. The only thing for which the naturally evil man is fit is destruction. In either case, government is utterly beside the point.
To attempt to use force to compel the naturally evil man into goodness, or to prevent the naturally good man from losing his goodness is like attempting to compel the frog out of his frog-ness, or to prevent the frog from losing his frog-ness. The frog is by nature absolutely a frog. No amount of violence and no amount of coercion can make him a rabbit. And since the frog is by nature a frog he can pose no threat to his own frog-ness. No centralized coercive authority is necessary to prevent, nor is it effective in preventing, the frog from losing his frog-ness.
The man who is good by nature has no use for government, because by definition he cannot lose his goodness. Nor can he pose a threat to his own natural goodness (i.e. left to himself, man who is “naturally” good when governed somehow becomes “naturally” evil when free of government). Because to claim that he may pose a threat to his own goodness is to deny that he is, in fact, naturally good. And the man who is evil by nature has no use for government, because he cannot be compelled to do good. Because to claim that the man who is evil by nature can be synthesized into good is to deny that he is, in fact, naturally evil. The naturally evil man is fit only for destruction. And if he is destroyed, then there is no one to govern, and thus there is no point in government.
And all of this leads us to another truth.
Man cannot be defined according to a moral nature. And of course once we no longer define him this way, there is no rational philosophical argument for the existence of government. Why? Because government is force, and force is violence, and violence nullifies choice. The man who cannot choose is a man who cannot express his own agency; and the man who cannot express his own agency cannot express SELF. Thus, he cannot BE himself in any relevant way.
You see, man is not a moral agent in the sense that morality defines him. Man is a rational agent. What this means that man is the epistemological frame of reference for all he knows; all he thinks; all he does. That is, man being himself, where “himself” is the agent who conceptualizes existence and thus makes it relevant and meaningful, is why man knows what he knows. Because he is SELF, and absolutely so, he is able to make distinctions between good and evil, and truth and fallacy. He is the arbiter–the reference–for knowledge.
Man’s nature is not a moral one, it is to be the reference for morality—for good and evil; truth and fallacy. HE defines and applies these things. Therefore, it is HE who governs them, not the other way around (the other way around being to make man subordinate to the very ideas and concepts which are meaningless and useless without him). For what is Truth unless it is true TO AND FOR MAN? And what is goodness unless it is good TO AND FOR MAN?
These things are worthless. They are nothing. They are non-existent.
It is man who serves as the epistemological and moral standard for all of the reality in which he exists. Man cannot rationally or productively be subordinated to a legal moral standard that derives the entirety of its value and relevancy and meaning from him. Man cannot serve moral standards, moral standards must serve him. Man does not serve truth. Truth serves him. To erect a set of rules for man to follow and by this claim he is good is to strip man from his rightful place as the only rational moral and epistemological reference for all of truth and goodness. And once this happens, truth and goodness have no meaning…and so the rules are pointless. Rules to which man is subordinated by violence are ultimately his destruction, not his salvation.
As described in the previous essay on this subject, object A must be defined in comparative terms with object B–or C, D, E, etc.. That is, in terms that include what is not A. And the presence of he who defines, that is, the observer, makes this fact self-evident. The observer can only know A from the frame of reference of himself. (Where Self is not a mathematical, but a metaphysical/ontological absolute. Not merely a reference, but the reference for all of what he calls Reality). Meaning, he must make the distinction as an observer between what he is and what he is not– that is, himself and, in this scenario, object A; he must make the distinction between the observed and the observer. And since the observer is required to provide the frame of reference for the definition and thus the Truth, Efficacy, and even morality of what is observed–again, in this example, object A–it is clear that A cannot exist in a vacuum of itself. The observer is required to define A in the first place, and thus declare that A, now defined as this or that, does, in fact, exist. Which brings me to…
The Utter Necessity of Existence as Simply a Function of Conceptualization:
Of course, observation is not merely observation, itself, but is, in all practical and efficacious fact, a function of conceptualization. For it would seem self-evident (though, paradoxically, this is not asserted, except when conceptualization is confused with consciousness, which is false) that absent the conceptuualization of what is observed it is impossible to define what is observed. And if what is observed has no definition then there is no rational grounds to claim that anything is actually observed at all; and thus that which is said to exist–when Existence is the metaphysical primary, and observation (empiricism) is the means of ascertaining reality–at root cannot possibly be named and thus it cannot possibly be known, and thus it cannot possibly be said to BE, period. In which case, where Existence precedes Conceptualization, it must be asserted that nothing actually exists first; and the observer then observes this “nothing” and somehow defines it. In other words, the observer is said to observe nothing (that which is nameless and utterly definition-less), which somehow exists, and then conceptualize it, after which it becomes something…that is, nothing, which exists, becomes something because of man’s conceptualizing power, and yet man has nothing to do with its existence, even though without him it cannot be known or stated what actually exists at all. Which thus undermines the argument that Existence exists prior to conceptualization, because existence absent that which is defined as having existence is not only irrelevant and irrational, but impossible. Infinite Existence as a Primary can neither be valued, nor does it imply the existence of things which can be valued. Only conceptualization can create things which are said to exist. It is a controversial statement, but Conceptualization creates things from otherwise infinitely relative infinite parts; Existence does not, and cannot. And this fact disqualifies Existence as a the Primary.
(Without first the established and absolute Ability to conceptualize, Existence can have no relationship to whatever is said to exist, since it is not Existence which DEFINES that which is said to exists/that which is observed to exist, but the conceptualizing powers of the observer. Without first this ability, nothing can be defined, and thus nothing can exist, since it is impossible–by the very defining of Existence as the metaphysical primary–to divorce Existence from that which exists.)
The Epistemological Importance of Relatively
A will be conceptualized in terms which include what he, the observer, is not, which means that A must also be defined in terms which include what it is not. For example, A is not the observer. Thus both the observer and A are defined, necessarily, due to the nature of observation, by comparing one to the other. A is A because it is not the observer, and vice versa. Rendered a different way, A is A because it is not B. Which makes B a foundational reason why A is in fact A. One cannot make an existential or ontological distinction between A and B without conceding that A and B have an existence which is entirely dependent (so to speak) upon one another, which means that neither A nor B can be themselves merely a function of themselves. Relative distinction between A and B, plus the conceptualization of the observer are all necessary in order for any definitions to be rendered for any of these things. (This is why I assert that Conceptualization and Relativity are corollaries, and are the foundation of all rational epistemology. In short, they are the only rational means by which man can know what he knows.)
So again, A is A because it is not B (where B could mean the observer) and vice versa; and this is the only means by which anything is and can be defined. Being relative to, but not B, means that A can actually be defined. For if something is not something else, only then can it be itself–and from this truth the observer is able to define that A is A. A is this, because it is observed, relatively (and only relatively) speaking, to not be that.
But if A is A absent this relative comparison–if A is A qua A, as Existence as the metaphysical Primary asserts, then:
1. The observer cannot be present, because the presence of an observer automatically creates a relative distinction between the observer and A. Which means that A must and will be defined in comparative terms…that is, in terms which include its relative distinction from the observer. That is, A will be defined in terms that include what it is not. And therefore, it is impossible to claim that the existence of A is a function of itself–A qua A. If the assertion is that A is A qua A, then the observer cannot be present, which means that no one is there to conceptualize A. In which case, how can A be defined?
2. A is infinite, with no end to itself, because an end necessitates the concession that A is distinct. A ends, and where A ends something else not A must begin, even if the end of A is “space”. For in this instance, where A ends, and there begins space, it must be conceded that space is in fact something, even if we merely concede that that something is simply “not A”. (Note: I do not concede that there is such a thing as space-as-an-object. My metaphysic declares a corollary relationship between relativity and conceptualization, eliminating both the need and the possibility of “empty space”, as a thing in and of itself. I merely use space in this example to illustrate that a literal physical end to object A necessitates its relative existence with something not A, even if we suppose that that something is merely empty space.) So again, if we accept that A is A qua A, then we must concede that A is in fact infinite. Which means it cannot be valued, which means it cannot be defined. Hence…
3. Infinite A means that A cannot be valued, which means it cannot be defined. Which means it cannot be said to exist.
All of this serves to illustrate why the notion that A is A because A qua A–that is, A is itself because of itself, from itself and to itself–is impossible. The very presence of the observer makes this fact self-evident. The very fact that A must be conceptualized in order to be defined means that A cannot be A qua A.
Remember, wherever there is someone asserting that A is A qua A, there is an observer, which thus nullifies the assertion.
If we divorce forgiveness from exculpation, then the repentance of the wrongdoer is unnecessary. But if we divorce forgiveness from exculpation, then what exactly is forgiveness? If not forgiveness, then what is concept which describes the idea that we will no longer hold against someone an evil?
Think awhile. I’ll wait.
And if we say we will no longer hold an evil against someone who actively promotes it and refuses to reject it, then how are we not excusing it and thus tacitly promoting it ourselves? And how exactly does this help the emotionally or physically traumatized deal with their pain? How does calling evil good help victims of evil to even define the problem in the first place?
I submit that the very concept which is forgiveness demands that it be directed to someone. Which is why it’s contractual, not psychological. Forgiveness not directed to another person or persons to me is meaningless. Obviously we cannot direct it to ourselves. If we are the innocent victims, then there is nothing of which we need to be forgiven. And if we extend it to another who rejects it then what exactly can be done with it?
Forgiveness as a bromide to sooth our emotional pain doesn’t seem consistent with its definition. Of course, I may choose to not allow another’s offense(s) to affect me either emotionally or physically or both (and there are many psychological/spiritual strategies for this) but I cannot forgive an evil act or idea that is still being actively perpetuated without tacitly excusing it. This is a bastardization of forgiveness by all rational definitions of the concept, including the Biblical one, and this makes it satanic.
Another false assertion/assumption is the idea that all “negative” emotions are somehow bad…are counter-productive. Nothing could be less true. Directing pain and anger towards an unrepentant abuser, for example, is extremely effective in motivating people to avoid the abuser and to seek justice for both themselves and other victims. It is not a desire for revenge–as the lie often goes–it is a means of self-preservation and the eradication of evil. Perpetual evil-doers–psychopaths, narcissists, and other vile sundry abusers–absolutely love the idea of forgiveness absent their repentance. Because it allows them to continue to sin without fear of reprisal and shifts the focus from their wickedness to the victim’s “bitterness”.
Reject this false forgiveness and at the very least we resist evil, reject the devil, defang lies, heap judgment upon the wicked, and rescue the innocent from the gaslighting of their oppressors.