Science Confirms the Existence of Gravity Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 3)

Gravitational Waves areripplesin spacetime…”

“‘Wavesof changing spacetime would propagatein all directions away from the source like waves inwater caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

Referencing back to part two of this article series, the logical fallacy discussed there relative to space and time is what science commits when it clams that “gravity waves are fluctuations in spacetime”: space and time manifest volume and temporality to themselves; they act relative to themselves, which is redundant and contradictory. Space and time are objectified as distinct, not fundamental (i.e. the context for the relative existence of physical reality-that is, physical objects), and then subsequently asserted to act as distinct objects relative to themselves. By both presuming a fundamentality and irreducibility to spacetime and obejctifying spacetime as a distinct object which interacts as a material object with other objects in the physical universe by being displaced in waves as a consequence of certain massive object interaction, science reveals its ignorance of the difference between metaphysics and physics, and pretends that they are one and the same, and that the metaphysical manifests as the physical, and vice versa. Which constitutes an outright embarrassing intellectual error on the part of those (physicists and mathematicians) who are widely considered to be the brightest minds humanity has to offer. This is not surprising, as the scientific community at best pays lip service to metaphyscis, and when it does it is usually in the form of some scientist who happens to be an adherent of some organized religion who is espousing scientific phenomenon as mrerely proclaiming the wonders of the Divine. In other words, proclaiming that science constitutes a validation of the mystical. And that’s not actually dealing with the metaphysics so much as punting them into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”…which is it’s own brand of codswallop that we won’t be dealing with here.

Here’s the problem: Space and time simply cannot be relative to the physical universe without fundamentally nullifying their very nature through redundancy and self-nullifying contradiction. Space (we will deal specifically with space here), once objectified, becomes a distinct entity itself—the vacuum, in reality, the absence of existence (that is, the absence of that which IS, is really a metaphysical context in which the relative relationships of those things which do exist becomes possible), becomes physical…it becomes not the absence of that which IS but something which IS, physically, itself. This being the case, space must have its own location, a location which is now relative to other objects which physically exist. In other words, space must now occupy space. And thus by occupying space may thus be displaced as “waves of gravity”.

But if space is actually what is implied and outright proclaimed by science and all rational and conventional defintions…that is, if space is indeed a vacuum—is the absence of that which exists—and thus does not and cannot occupy space, then it is, ipso facto, fundamental. For nothingness, by definition, is by nature infinite. But the infintity of the metaphysical is of course not directly (or, perhaps better said, not physically) compatible with the finity of the physical. Space, being the vacuum, and not a thing itself, thus exists nowhere. Thus, it cannot be displaced in waves, for there is literally nowhere for it to go. Waves by definition indicate a displacement of the medium which is “waving”, therefore, there can be no waves in a medium which cannot by its nature be displaced.

END part 3

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravitational Waves; Reason does Not (Part 2)

Gravitational Waves areripplesin spacetime…”

“‘Wavesof changing spacetime would propagate in all directions away from the source like waves in water caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

*

Space cannot both be a vacuum and occupy a vacuum…e.g. “waves of spacetime”, where space, the vacuum, is displaced into the vacuum of itself.  And time cannot both be temporality and occupy a temporal location. In other words, time cannot have or possess specific temporal value—e.g. “the end of time; the beginning of time”. It cannot fluctuate with space in waves or ripples because these fluctuations imply shifting temporal changes within time itself—that time, can move with space to shift its own temporal location. This is simply impossible, because it contradicts time itself. Time cannot itself posses a specific temporal value which can then shift with space in the presence of gravitational changes. This is a redundancy which nullifies the very root essence of time.

Let’s look at some other examples of science, and material philosophy, which contradict themselves by presumptuously reducing their own irreducibles:

-Energy cannot both be the measure of action potential (the ability to do work) and the instantiation of action (work) and possess energy, itself. That is, energy cannot both be the manifestation of work and a thing which works.

-Gravity cannot both be that which pulls and a thing which possesses the capacity to pull. That is, gravity cannot both be the manifestation of gravitational pull and be a thing which pulls on other things.

-Existence, which is considered the irreducible context for Realtiy in empirical and objectivist philosophies, cannot itself be a thing which exists. That is, the context in which material realtiy exists cannot be objectified as a distinct object which distinctly exists. Existence cannot exist in its own existential context. This is a redundancy which contradicts and nullifies Existence. This of course is the inherent self-defeating fallacy in the metaphysical claim “existence exists”. It is a futile proposition which attempts to correlate the metaphysical to the physical, which is of course a very noble endeavor, but here the endeavor fails. To claim that existence exists is to state the redundancy that existence possesses existence; that it does what it is. Which is a rational error. Existence, being fundamental, somehow yet acts in order to verify itself to itself. In other words, to state that existence exists is to objectify existence as not a metaphysical context for the interaction of the physical, but as a distinct object which is specific from that which exists “in it”, or “in its context”, and thus is not a basis for object existence, but an object which is merely relative to other objects. “Existence exists” undermines existence as being fundamental and primary.

And more to the point of the redundancy of “existence exits”…let’s use “tree” as an example of the rational error committed when material objects are correlated and conflated with their value upon the greater environment (e.g. other objects). It makes no sense to claim that a tree, for example, itself, possesses “treeness”. That the tree does tree. Treeness is entirely irrelevant to the tree, itself; just like existing, or “existence-ness” is entirely irrelevant to existence, itself. “Treeness” is the role the tree plays relative to other objects in order that the observer may conceptualize “tree” as distinct from say “bird” or “dog”. Treeness, or “doing tree”, is a relative action that is a consequence of the tree’s existence relative to its environment. “Treeness” is a concept that results from the tree plus its environment plus the observer. In other words, the tree cannot be a tree to itself. The tree does not act relative to itself. In the same way existence does not act relative to itself. Existence does not exist any more than the tree does treeness. Existence, once objectified as a thing which exists, only exists because it acts relatively to other objects in a greater environment. And this means that existence is not in fact primary, which means it is not irreducible, which means empirical and objectivist metaphysics are incomplete. I propose that the reason objects act relatively to other objects, and why the observer observes and conceptualizes these relative distinctions to create epistemology and ethics, is because they are able. Ability is the singular commonality which binds all material realtiy, then. Ability is the metaphysical primary. And you would not say that “ability is able”, because ability doesn’t need to be able. Ability implies action, and action implies that which acts. And that which acts is what is able. We could even say that “that which exists is able to exist” if we still feel the need to inject existence into metaphysics. This makes existence a rational metaphysical concept because it recognizes that existence is in fact reducible. If we remove ability then we are left with “that which exists, exists”, which is merely another way of stating the tautology “existence exists” (“existence does existence”) which is meaningless. We could say that “existence implies that which exists” if we are going to force the issue of existence as metaphysical primary. But this begs the question “how does that which exists exist?”. And the answer of course is “because it is able to exist’.

END part two

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravitational Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 1)

Gravitational Waves areripplesin spacetime…”

“‘Wavesof changing spacetime would propagate in all directions away from the source like waves in water caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

I don’t know everything there is to know, and thankfully I don’t have to. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. In order to successfully exist as a rational creature, pursing Truth and Morality in perfect and purest form, one only has to know this: Existence is rationally consistent; Reality cannot contradict.

Here is an axiom I recently devised as a simple means to apprehend and process the connection between consciousness/cognition and the empirical environment:

“A conceptual contradiction is a physical impossibility.”

Here is an example of what is meant by this: from the position of a given observational (conscious) frame of reference, going left cannot simultaneously be going right in either the abstract or the practical. The abstract idea is a contradiction in terms; any attempt to create and/or actually observe “going left whilst also going right” in the real world shall fail, and will always fail. We can only observe reality from a singular and single frame of reference at any given moment, and that reference cannot bear contradiction…in both senses of the word “bear” here. Now, if we are defining “left” and “right” from the frames of reference of two people looking at the movement from opposite sides, then it can be said that contextually (or subjectively) left is also right because the claim is contextualized and qualified by describing the different positions of the observers. However, the claim is subjective only. At face value, “left is also right” is a contradiction and thus is to be entirely rejected until a qualification is forthcoming. If no qualification exists, thenit is a lie.

Put it general terms, the axiom above inplies simply: A cannot also simultaneously be B. In other words, it is impossible that A may simultaneously be B universally and objectively. The only objective/universal claim is one which applies equally to all observers in all contexts; it is unchanging, and is informed by a single epistemological premise—a single, fundamental defintion of what constitutes truth—based upon a metaphysical premise (what is the nature of reality) which is internally rationally consistent and self-affirming. These are the only parameters available for Objective Truth and from it Objective Reality. If we are all looking at a square on a blackboard, and we all accept the defintion of “square”, then that square cannot also be a circle. Period. Ever. There is no Reality A which somehow by some magic or math is integrated with Reality B, even though they are mutually exclusive realities according to the terms in which they are described, which can mean that we, the observers, are viewing a square which is also a circle…where the square and the circle are equally the same but also categorically different. No. All such claims are object lies. They cannot be. They are anti-Truth. There is no appealing ot mystery, to some Divine force, to law’s of nature, to governing mathematics, to Determinism, to the limitations of human understanding. All of that is a lie. As soon as someone tells you that A is also B and they do not qualify that statement by appealing to context and terms which thus shall render it fundamentally subjective, it is a lie. Period. Full stop. End of story.

The square is not also a circle.

Left is not also right.

The tree is not also a cloud.

And waves cannot exist in a medium which cannot be displaced.

END part 1

The Law is at War with You (Part 3, Conclusion)

At the beginning of this article series, I opened with the question: Without the law what is to prevent someone from committing evil action X should they have the opportunity; and what then is the consequence?

From this question, often asked by apologists for legal ethics (those who assume that Coercive Authority, i.e. the State, is utterly necessary for human ethics to exist), two things can be assumed beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the law is not necessary to declare moral value—indeed, that moral value must be known before the law exists (e.g. law is to prevent evil action X, an action of which its moral evil warrants the creation-intervention of law). And second, that evil has no negative consequence without law.

The idea that there is no consequence for immoral action absent law presents us with a contradiction; this contradiction is “resolved” by rejecting morality entirely, and replacing it with legality. Here is the contradiction: by asserting that there is no negative consequence for immoral action, an immoral action can no longer be defined as immoral. You see, in ethics, it is axiomatic that action and consequence are corollary, yet the law “splits” this corollary by making action a function of moral ethics and consequence a function of legal ethics. But morality and legality are two completely distinct ethical systems, each with its own very specific premises and corollaries and conclusions, and, most importantly, its own metaphysical foundation. (Morality is based upon will and choice, its metaphysics are individualist; legality is based upon authority and coercive force, its metaphysics are collectivist). They simply cannot be merged/integrated in any rational or efficacious way. So what happens is that morality by default becomes merely propagandistic conveyance for the implementation of legality, whereupon morality is discarded by the Authority (ruling class) and replaced with legality as the author and arbiter of the ethical value of both action and consequence. And this is done quite naturally, and is not necessarily consciously conceived by those arguing for the State and the Rule of Law or the ruling class. For as soon as we assume and accept that consequence must be a function of the law, then it becomes impossible to determine the ethical value of an action without also appealing to the law; and this is due to the inherent mutual exclusivity between legal ethics and moral ethics. This is the nature of ethics.

All of this being the case, in response to the question at the top of this article, we are forced to reply as follows:

Wihout law, why should we think that evil action X is in fact evil? In other words, how do we know that action X, or engaging in action X, is a bad thing?

The answer is of course that we do not; we cannot. Because by asking the question we necessarily concede that legality, not morality, is the only relevant and possible ethical system. Outside of the law, there is no ethic. Any action outside the law cannot by definition be called illegal, and thus it cannot be called unethical, and thus it cannot be called “bad”. The law, in accordance with the logical rules of ethics, is both prescriptive and proscriptive. It dictates which actions are good or bad (or said another way, it dictates the goodness or badness value of a given action) and it dicatates the consequences for actions. The law declares what you must do and what you must not (which is fundamentally oxymoronic, because one cannot do a “not”….so the law fundamentally dicates all behavior at root). And this is why law has nothing at all to do with choice and will. Human action is fundametally driven by individual will. But will is not recogniznzed by law, which by nature is coercive, not cooperative, which is why as time goes by, the law—the State, the Ruling Class—becomes more and more oppressive; it smothers humanity, it does not, and cannot, free it. The nature of the law is to dictate, not emancipate. Law rejects human choice and will, it does not provide some kind of cohesive and moral context for them. The “freeing power of democratic law” is just lie you have been told to make you more amenable to the whims of the ruling class, nothing more. You are coerced by very persuasive, euphonious, idealistic indoctrination, which is much cheaper and more profitable than state terrorism, gulags, guillotines, death squads, and gas chambers, and less messy as well. The chattel bear more service and substance if they walk willingly to their cages and pastures than if they struggle or try to run away. Though terror, gulags, guillotines, death squads, and gas chambers, or some manifestation thereof, will eventually appear no matter how ostensibly democratic a system is…and there are reasons for this, but they are a subject for another article.

Finally, I will end with this:

The law does not provide a context for the implementation of efficacious morality. Law is, according to the ethics of morality, entirely opposed to moral behavior.

In other words, the law is categorically immoral.

END

The Law is at War with You (Part 2)

In part one of this essay series, I concluded with the declaration that the law is not a means of enforcing moral ethics, or a conveyance of them, but is in fact a replacement of them. And it is on this point that I would like to elaborate.

Most of us assume, because we are indoctrinated to do so from our very first breath, that the law, as a tool of moral ethics, has to do with willful action and consequence. That is, if your willful action is to break the law, your consequence is punishment under the law. But this is not actually so. When dealing in legality, we are inexorably and necessarily simultaneously dealing in Authority. The law and the authority to enforce the law are indeed corollary…without an Authority to force compliance and punishment according to the law, then the law cannot be manifest. Law, absent authority, in other words, has no consequence…and therefore its commands have no substance, and therefore the law does not exist in any practical sense. Said another way, once people have a choice as to whether or not they will obey the law, then there is no law. The very nature of law is to disregard choice entirely…that’s the whole point. If someone chooses to disobey, then the law shall punish them. That’s how the whole thing works. One’s choice to disobey the law does not get them out from under it…not at all. It merely invites punishment according to the law. The law does not recognize your choice as legitimate, and that is why you are punished according to the law when you disobey it. If your choice was recognized as legitimate by law, then there would be no punishment for disobedience. Punishment exists in legal ethics precisely as a means to nullify choice, not to affirm it. Before your choice can result in a consequence which fundamentally satisfies that choice, the law steps in to punish you. Instead of a natural consequence to your exercise of individual will, you will relinquish your money to the State, or suffer garnished wages, or a jail cell, or a firing squad, a noose, guillotine, cross, electric chair, needle…etc.. At the very least, you spend your days “on the run” and in hiding. In any case, the point is that the law steps in long before any true, natural consequence of your free choice can ever manifest.

But of course this is not what most of us suppose…we are taught that punishment (and also reward) is a consequence of choice. If the law punishes the “evildoer” then it is because he is simply “reaping what he sows”. If he had not chosen to disobey, then he would not have been punished. However, this is not in reality how law works. Obedience, by definition, has nothing to do with choice, yet it has everything to do with law. One does not choose to obey, for that is a contradiction in terms. One obeys legal commands, or else one is punished. The commands are dictated by the Authority; the punishment is likewise and equally dictated by the Authority. Both the commands of the law and the punishment for disobedience of the law are equal manifestations of the Authority. They are One, and man is obligated to it. He will either obey, regardless of what he wants, or he will be punished, regardless of what he wants. Said another way: He will either obey, regardless of what he’d rather choose, or he will be punished, regardless of what he’d rather choose. The command to “obey or else” hasn’t the least bit to to with individual will, and thus hasn’t the least to do with choice. The law is dictated TO man; it is not a product of his will, then, but of the will (and whim) of the Authority, which is predicated upon a collective Ideal into which humanity is to be forced, not Individual agency exercised as choice. Man is born into law—he belongs to it, NOT vice versa. And law is a giant rock which is falling on his head; he may move out from under it, but only by stepping off a cliff and onto the jagged rocks below. In this situation, the choice he makes leads to the exact same conclusion, having nothing fundamentally to do with him or his choice at all. And that’s the whole idea. That’s LAW.

From this, a fundamental truth now becomes clear, where before it was hidden and obscured by layers and layers of misunderstanding, disinformation, misinformation, rationally bankrupt philosophy, and sadistic self-loathing tradition: law doesn’t have anything to do with individual action and consequence. At all. Your actions are compelled, thus denying your will, which denies your mind, which denies your singular consciousness (your awareness of Self), which denies your root individual nature, which denies your existence entirely. Manifestations of individuality, like choice (true, objective freedom) are thus ipso facto illegal…which simply means that they not recognized as existentially legitimate and natural. Law is philosophically collectivist, not Individualist. It compels man against his will by collectivizing him and then directing and defining the collective whole into Its legal obligation to serve the Authority (ruling class). And it compels man necessarily against his will because it does not recognize his will, because it does not recognize his individuality. The law views man’s existence as fundamentally collective, thus making man a function of an Idealized reality, not a rational reality. The Ideal is an abstract, the collective thus likewise an abstract, the collective becomes an ironic monolithic entity, and man the individual is thus forced to live in this dream-reality which the State (the Authority/ruling class) intends to make manifest by coercive FORCE, and the law serves as the blueprint and ethical exuse for the resultant bloodshed. This is how the State excuses its mass murder of millions of men and women on the battlefields of governemnt wars and other places whilst simultaneously condemning every random “lawbreaker”—a tax avoider, a drug dealer, a man operating a barber shop without a business license—as a moral villain to be ridiculed as an affront to human prosperity and progress.

The law, my friends, is not a natural context for action and consequence, as if it is merely an expression of object and endemic human free agency, where we all just get together and happily agree to play by the rules. Without a ruling class, there are no legal rules! Those rules we all followed as kids in our games of backyard sports, or tag, or pretend play, these are not law! They are rules without the ruler…which makes them the opposite of law: cooperation based upon an arrant individual willingness to be part of the game, without threat of punishment, nor any means to effect punishment for withdrawing or choosing not to play, save the loss of maybe a little face, or at worst separation from that particular group of individuals merely due to disparate individual interests, upon which another group may be joined, or not.

This is voluntarism, not collectivism. It is not the State, it is Stateless.  It is not legality, it is morality. It is not obligation to Authority, it is the freedom to act morally.

END part 2

The Law is at War with You (Part 1)

If the question is “Without the law what is to prevent or dissuade someone from (committing this or that evil action) should they have the opportunity and should they feel like it; and what then is the consequence?”  …yes, if this is the ethical question with respect to the law, and it is, then we can argue that the law is not necessary to determine the moral value of the action in question. Indeed, we can argue that to even ask the question in the first place is to admit that moral judgement must already have been rendered upon the action. So we know that by the very (ostensible) point of the law in the first place—to dissuade men from and to punish men for evil actions—that law itself has nothing to do with how and why actions are morally valued. In other words, if an action can be valued as “good” or “bad” outside the law, and indeed this value is an a priori premise of the law, then it can be concluded that the law has nothing at all fundamentally to do with moral ethics. And this is very important. Because what this means is that the law can neither fundamentally promotes moral action nor provides for moral consequence.

Let me explain.

Moral ethics are often the ostensible reason why men feel the need to apply law in defense of morality, but those who are committed to law as a conveyance of morality rarely, if ever, claim that law is the means by which morality is defined. And this makes sense, as the very definition of ethics as a bonafide philosophical category must include both action and consequence of  action—these are corollary. In other words, even men who are comitted to law as a means to implement morality accept that the morality of both actions and consequences are wholly defined and understood apart from the law. Said another way, even those who promote the law as a defense of morality tacitly admit that morality is a fully-formed, complete, self-sustaining/self-contained, comprehensive ethical system. It already describes what is good and bad, and therefore it necessarily describes the consequences of good and bad actions, and how to promote the former and prevent the other. The moral value of an action and the corollary moral value of its consequence necessarily imply the moral means of defending and promoting morality. Moral ethics don’t actually need the law. At all.

Which begs the question: why do we have law then?

I’ll get to that. But I suspect you already know/have figured it out.

Law is instituted in defense of morality only after moral actions and consequences have already been observed, defined, and understood. Ergo: “We must have law in order to prevent/punish people from/for doing this or that BAD thing”. That is, law is seen to be a tool of moral ethics. But here’s the problem: it has nothing actually to do with moral ethics…and this is the grand ethical irony. The Ethics of Morality already provide the utility for which the law is said to be necessary. In other words, in any true, legitimate ethical system—of which morality is indeed the only rationally consistent example—the prevention of and consequence for unethical action is endemic to the system. Morality provides for its own conveyances of prevention and consequence. It does not need the law…the law, as far as moral ethics goes, is utterly superfluous. Morality already endemically declares that “if thou do X then thou shall necessarily reap Y”. The future prevention of negative moral action X is the example/experience of reaping of the necessary corollary moral negative consequences of Y…both of which are defined and understood according to morality, not according to the law.

Which brings us to the next point in this essay series: The law then, by deduction of relatively simple logic, is not a tool of morality but a replacement of it. It does not save or protect the innocent, it wrecks the distinction between the morally innocent and the morally guilty, and places the declaration of ethical value squarely in the hands and the whims of a subjective ruling class (Governing Authority…the State). The establishment of a ruling class  is, as a fundamental premise, is the deposing of morality and the institution of legality in its place. And this is necessarily the death of humanity, not the salvation of it.

END part one

Why Our Government Can’t See Any of Us

If my fundamental social context is one where I operate as a function of what someone else will allow—that is, existence under the auspices of ruling authority (legal ethics, which is forced compliance)—then I can never really know who I am. Because what I am at root is a function of what I think, and what I think is corollary to what I desire, or will, which is corollary to what I choose. But if my social context is fundamentally one of forced compliance, and my choices fundamentally a function of what the Authority will allow, then choice is only relative, and my desire and therefore my thought, my mind, is never really of me. It’s of the Authority which seeks to exist through me, and in spite of the real me.

Within such a context, any claim of any citizen that they would prefer “more freedom” is merely a claim that they would prefer to be allowed more choice…but “allowed choice” is a fundamental contradiction in terms. He who wields the power to allow me to choose is he who is at root utterly in control of my choices, which puts him in practical control of my will and thus my mind and thus my SELF…in which case there is no actual me at all.  So “more freedom” here is just an iteration of authority over me—the power to compel me against my will. There is no such thing as freedom within the context of ruling authority (the State/Government). It’s an illusion at best; but mostly it’s just a bromide.

Under the umbrella of ruling authority where my will is only “allowed” to be expressed, I am functioning merely as an expression of the ruler’s power to compel. Therefore, I, my SELF, have no actual value to the social equation. I’m a pawn in the plans of the ruling class, period, full stop. I don’t exist to them, and never did. We recoil at the thought of  a handful of people being shot to death in a movie theater by a psychopathic teenager, calling it a “senseless slaughter”, but we sing songs of heroism and tribute to and get all teary-eyed and sentimental about the thousands slaughtered in the span of minutes on the battlefields of government wars. This is because we are taught that in the context of doing things for “our country”, which fundamentally can only mean the State, which fundamentally means the ruling class, there is no such thing as an individual. And you cannot “senselessly slaughter” people who don’t actually exist. Death by the thousands and millions in defense of the collective ruling class is glorious; death by the handful via one acting “illegally” is a pointless tragedy.

Let us wake from our cognitive dissonance.

END

The Problem Science and Relgion Share: The Self

How could man’s brain be created by God or nature, out of either “nothing” or the material of nature, to—by design—observe and conceptualize a singular Self (consciousness); and this Self as intrinsically distinct from God and nature…as separate, as absolute, as a constant, and not a direct function of God or nature? That is, how can God or nature, being wholly responsible for the existence of man, determine that man shall observe God or nature (or God and nature) as though they were outside of him? For that which is absolutely created and determined by divine omniscience/omnipotence or natural law cannot possibly possess a unique existential frame of reference by which the distinction can be observed and defined.

The real conundrum from both science and religion as they stand today in their particular orthodoxies is not evil, or free will, or finding absolute truth, or answering the Question of Everything. It is the intrinsically singular, absolute, constant Self of the invidual…the “I” of each one of us; the One existential reference by which we value and define all that we observe and all which exists, including God and nature.

END

“‘What is Government?’ Answered in One Paragraph”

What is government? Well, it’s quite simple.

A group of violent people (aspiring ruling class) threaten the productive people with violence and take their property, then use some of the property to bribe the unproductive in exchange for greater power by which they further exploit the productive. Then the children of both the unproductive and the productive are indoctrinated into thinking that this arrangement mis a sociological virtue and a moral necessity. This goes on until the transfer of wealth from the productive to the ruling class (with the unproductive being the buffer between the ruling class and those they exploit…a combination of hired thugs and cannon fodder, to put it bluntly) must rely upon unsustainable debt, arrant political corruption, kangaroo courts and show trials, unfettered lower class immigration, and the distractions of circuses and sideshows and endless war, shortly after which the ruling class abandons the disaster and moves on to do it again somewhere else.

The end.

When Ethics Don’t Exist, There is No Such Thing as “Preferential Behavior” (Part 2)

By removing man’s consciousness from the metaphysical equation, which the metaphysical primary of Existence most certainly does, we remove the singular conscious Self from man. And the conscious Self is the means by which man is able to assert that he IS, and by this is able to say what he IS NOT—he is able to make the distinction between himself and his environment, and this is the fundamental definition of Reality, period. Any other definition, and any other reference, is utterly beyond him…he cannot possibly know it. Therefore, by removing consciousness from metaphysics, man’s ability to define his environment and himself is fundamentally removed. And this of course makes it impossible for him to claim any real epistemological understanding (truth from falsehood), and lacking epistemological understanding he necessarily lacks ethical understanding (good from evil), because epistemology and ethics are of course corollary. The metaphysical primary of Existence then ironically removes man from Existence, placing it utterly outside of him, beyond his consciousness, and thus beyond his categorical frame of reference. In which case, man can claim to apprehend no actual ethics, because ethics, like epistemology, are a function of metaphysics…the metaphysics of Existence. And this is the root of the claim that “universal ethics do not exist”. As far as man is concerned, ethics are impossible for him, because his consiousness, being utterly subjective, being exclusive of Existence, is exclusive of not only universal ethics but anything universal at all…be it ethics, or truth, or reality on the whole. Because universality in the philosophical sense, and in the practical sense, is simply another word for objectivity. So the claim “universal ethics do not exist” can be rendered—and more precisely rendered—“objective ethics do not exist”. From this we can follow the logical progression to the claim “objective ethical behavior does not exist”. And this being the case, the idea that it is possible for man to act in a “universally preferable” way is irrational and pointless. Without universal ethics, there can be no standard for universally preferable ethics, because to say that there are no universal ethics is really to say that there are no actual ethics at all. And there can be no such thing as a preference which is rooted in that which does not actually exist in the first place. It’s an infinitely subjective preference, in other words…which makes it merely an opinion, full stop…akin to having a favorite color.

Universally preferable behavior. Well…what is actually preferable? Nothing. Because universal ethical behavior—behavior which is right as opposed to that which is wrong—cannot objectively be defined; it isn’t a thing. Man’s consciousness is removed from reality; man’s consciousness, specifically his conscious Self, is his sole frame of reference for anything which is real and thus true and thus good. And as goes the reference so goes ethics. As goes ethics so goes behavior. As goes behavior, so goes preferential behavior.

Ethics doen’t exist because You qua You don’t exist, and so your behavior doesn’t exist, which means there is no behavior to be preferred. Universal or otherwise.

Holding onto fundamentally untenable and irrational metaphysics (like those of Existence) will lead one down the wrong ethical path all the time, every time.

END