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

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

ABILITY (the metaphysical primary) (implies…)

ACTION (implies…)

RELATIVITY (implies…)

REFERENCE (or CONSTANT) (implies…)

SELF (or I) (implies…)

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

LANGUAGE (implies…)

COMMUNICATION (implies…)

OTHER (or OTHER SELF)

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END

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

Let’s take a chair.

Is the chair able to exist…as a chair?

No?

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

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

There is none.

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

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

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

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

That reference is what I mean by the Self.

Metaphysics: Ability-Action-Relativity-Conceptualization-Constant

# The Self: Addressing some criticism

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

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

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

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

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

For what?

For everything.

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

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

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

Ability–Action–Relativity–Conceptualization–Constant

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

# Why a Plurality of Existence is Impossible (updated version)

[Here is a reblog of my previous article, with significant additions and edits. ]

“Existence exists”, not distinct existences, so the metaphysical premise goes.

So, let’s be clear about what this means. It’s not the tree which is the metaphysical primary, okay, but the existence of the tree. And since existence is the primary, and all things “objectively” exist, existence becomes a de facto singularity, not a plurality, since there is and can be no relevant difference between the existence of objects. In other words, if all things exist, and existence is the metaphysical primary, then all things must exist equally. It cannot be said that on the primary metaphysical level one thing–one object–exists more or less than another. Meaning that when it comes to existence, there are no relevant distinctions between the existence of objects…between that which equally–in equal measure–applies to all objects, regardless of what the objects are; regardless of the nature of the objects. And an irrelevant distinction is in fact no distinction at all. For nature does not trump the metaphysical primary in terms of describing the absolute, infinite, unchanging essence of a thing. Nature thus becomes moot if in fact the metaphysical primary is one of absolute and infinite equality.

Additionally, it is not the nature of objects which drives the supreme relevancy of existence, as though it functions according to its own separate paradigm. For in that case the metaphysical primary would be absolutely bound to “nature”, making it a direct function of existence. But in that case, how can there be distinctions of nature? If nature is in essence the metaphysical primary, and thus must apply in full and equal measure–absolute and infinite–to all objects, then how can any relevant distinctions be defined by nature?

They cannot.

So then, for nature to apply as a means to provide relevant distinctions between objects it really cannot have anything directly to do with the metaphysical primary. It must apply particularly to specific objects, in varying degrees, and not equal amongst objects. But this becomes impossible and irrelevant to that which does apply absolutely equally to all objects–that is, the metaphysical primary, because that which IS all things, the primary, nullifies that which is in opposition to it–in this case, a “plurality of existence according to nature”–which attempts to subordinate existence, the metaphysical primary, to nature, in order to rationalize a plurality of existence. This is obviously contradictory, and thus illogical and impossible.

Nature, then, cannot be the one thing which all things equally share, but also by which objects can be defined distinctly, because this is a contradiction in terms. In short, nature cannot be rationally incorporated into the metaphysical primary of existence, which again must be singular, because it–that is nature–is considered a property unique and of various value or degree to objects. Since existence, the primary, must rationally apply to all objects equally, then by definition there can be no unique and ultimately distinctive properties amongst those objects.

In every case then, I submit, there can be no plurality of existence for the simple fact that there must be some singular and absolute commonality which binds all objects by forming the very essence from which they all are a direct function, and which resolves the existential mutual exclusivity of objects which are said to be “plurality” at the fundamental, primary metaphysical level really must mean mean is infinitely distinct…or infinite distinction. Which is of course impossible. For even what is “plural” in existence must have a common context whereby the plurality is not infinite distinction between objects–which again is really the metaphysic of the mutual exclusivity of objects–in order that actual efficacious interaction between and amongst objects can occur. And that context is the metaphysical primary. And it is not plural, but utterly and infinitely inclusive and singular.

# Why a Plurality of Existence is Impossible

“Existence exists”, not distinct existences, so the metaphysical premise goes.

So, let’s be clear about what this means. It’s not the tree which is the metaphysical primary, okay, but the existence of the tree. And since existence is the primary, and all things “objectively” exist, existence becomes a de facto singularity, not a plurality, since there is and can be no relevant difference between the existence of objects. In other words, if all things exist, and existence is the metaphysical  primary, then all things must exist equally. It cannot be said that on the primary metaphysical level one thing–one object–exists more or less than another.  Meaning that when it comes to existence, there are no relevant distinctions between the existence of objects…between that which equally–in equal measure–applies to all objects, regardless of what the objects are; regardless of the nature of the objects. And an irrelevant distinction is in fact no distinction at all. For nature does not trump the metaphysical primary in terms of describing the absolute, infinite, unchanging essence of a thing. Nature thus becomes moot if in fact the metaphysical primary is one of absolute and infinite equality.

Additionally, it is not the nature of objects which drives the supreme relevancy of existence, as though it functions according to its own separate paradigm. For in that case the metaphysical primary would be absolutely bound to “nature”, making it a direct function of existence. But in that case, how can there be distinctions of nature? If nature is in essence the metaphysical primary, and thus must apply in full and equal measure–absolute and infinite–to all objects, then how can any relevant distinctions be defined by nature?

They cannot.

So then, for nature to apply as a means to provide relevant distinctions between objects it really cannot have anything directly to do with the metaphysical primary.  It must apply particularly to specific objects, in varying degrees, and not equal amongst objects. But this becomes impossible and irrelevant to that which does apply absolutely equally to all objects–that is, the metaphysical primary, because that which IS all things, the primary, nullifies that which is in opposition to it–in this case, a “plurality of existence according to nature”–which attempts to subordinate existence, the metaphysical primary, to nature, in order to rationalize a plurality of existence. This is obviously contradictory, and thus illogical and impossible.

Nature, then, cannot be the one thing which all things equally share, but also by which objects can be defined distinctly, because this is a contradiction in terms. In short, nature cannot be rationally incorporated into the metaphysical primary of existence, which again must be singular, because it–that is nature–is considered a property unique and of various value or degree to objects. Since existence, the primary, must rationally apply to all objects equally, then by definition there can be no unique and ultimately distinctive properties amongst those objects.

In every case then, I submit, there can be no plurality of existence for the simple fact that there must be some singular and absolute commonality which binds all objects by forming the very essence from which they all are a direct function, and which resolves the existential mutual exclusivity of objects which are said to be “plurality” at the fundamental, primary metaphysical level really must mean mean is infinitely distinct…or infinite distinction. Which is of course impossible. For even what is “plural” in existence must have a common context whereby the plurality is not infinite distinction between objects–which again is really the metaphysic of the mutual exclusivity of objects–in order that actual efficacious interaction between and amongst objects can occur. And that context is the metaphysical primary. And it is not plural, but utterly and infinitely inclusive and singular.

# Equality, Social Justice, and the Inverse Corollary of Existence to Identity

Since existence between objects is relative–that is, movement between two or more objects in a vacuum (of space) means that depending on how an observer chooses to measure the relationship, either object at any given time can serve as the reference for said measurement–the only thing which can be said to be fundamentally equal between objects is their existence.

Now, before I go any further, and before one of my many philosophically astute readers observes and comments upon the inevitable rational dilemma involved in taking “existence” as the metaphysical primary to its logical conclusion, let me provide you with the following disclaimer:

I submit that existence isn’t actually the metaphysical irreducible–that honor is reserved for “ability”.  The ability to exist (which really has its foundation in the ability to conceptualize existence), in other words, must precede existence.  But for the purposes of this article, and to use a concept that is more readily understandable and familiar to most people, “existence” as the assumed foundational metaphysic is acceptable.  In any case, whether we assume “existence” or “ability” as the metaphysical primary does not significantly change the argument within the specific context of this article.

Moving on…

Now, what I mean by “the only thing equal is the existence of the respective objects” is merely that the being–the IS–of object A is equal to the being–the IS–of object B.  This is due to the fact that objectively, and necessarily, each object, empirically apprehended, must be said to possess absolute existence.  In other words, each object is not an amalgamation or an integration of existence and NON-existence, for this would constitute an impossible contradiction.  Because the objects exist, they cannot, by definition, NOT exist in any measure.  You cannot integrate a NOT with an IS; and since clearly each object IS, then they are by no means any value of not.  And further, because there can be no such actual thing as nothing–for nothing, by definition, cannot be something–each object must be entirely, infinitely, and categorically something.  Put another way: each object must have existence, and they must have it absolutely.  And since the existence is in equal measure absolute, or infinite, there is absolute, or infinite, equality between the two objects.

This is validated by the fact that there is no way to observe a distinction between each object’s relative and respective existence, for all we can say about existence is that it is relative, which in no way mitigates or limits existence as the absolute metaphysical primary.  (On the contrary, I would argue that in order for existence to be relative, it must be infinite…it must be absolute and limitless; and the the contradiction is only ostensible, not actual.)  The identity distinctions between objects are based upon the premise that they each possess absolute existence first, in order that they can then be defined (conceptualized) relative to one another.  In other words, existence must precede any relevant application of relativity.

To put this in simpler terms, we can say that the moon, for example, absolutely exists, and likewise the apple.  One cannot be said nor measured to exist in a greater or lesser degree than the other.  “Lesser” and “greater” are concepts which require relative distinction, which is only relevant if the objects exist first in order that distinctions, which then are relative, can be made.  In other words, the relativity of existence is predicated upon existence, itself.  And…well…at the very least, relativity and existence are corollaries.

Because of the fact that existence between objects is utterly equal to an infinite degree, any attempt to apply equality beyond the application of the truth that both object A and object B exist, and this infinitely, and therefore literally, and unambiguously and, in the literal sense, indistinctly, is a gross logical fallacy.  The reason for the logical fallacy is as follows:

The absolute existence of object A demands that it, by definition, is simultaneously absolutely not object B, and vice versa.  As object A and object B have utterly equal (even, identical, really…but that’s another, even more nuanced article) existence, they are also simultaneously infinitely distinct from one another.  What this means is that these objects are infinitely different once we concede their absolute existential equality.  A succinct way of putting it is:  as their existence is infinitely equal, their identity is infinitely distinct.   Their identity is distinct to the same infinite degree as their existence is equal.

This is why any attempt to cultivate “social justice” based upon “equality” of individuals (a contradiction, since “social” is a collectivist, not individualistic, philosophical ideology) must fail.  It is rooted in the false notion that there can be an equality of identity, and not existence.  The notion is false because it violates the Law (as postulated by myself) of Existence as Inversely Correlate to Identity:  If A is itself absolute, it is likewise and simultaneously absolutely not B.  Or, stated more abstractly:

Where A(Existence) = B(Existence), A(Identity) ≠ B(Identity)

Practically applied, what this means is fairly obvious:  I (for example) am not you and you are not me–our identities are infinitely distinct.  We are each One…we are absolutely ourselves whilst being absolutely NOT each other, which makes us infinitely individual at the most basic level: existence; and only here, at existence, is equality rationally applied to society.  And by this I mean that equality simply means that one individual in society may not deny the other individual the right of pursuing his/her own life as he/she chooses and is able as an extension of their infinite existence.   And thus this individual, distinct, existence, being  ipso facto and therefore necessary, must be both True and Good.  And therefore pursuing such existence as one chooses–also by virtue of being the only one who possesses the singular frame reference of Self, absolutely, from which to manifest his or her life, and thus CAN be the only one who can rationally choose how to manifest his/her own life–can only be considered an explicit right.  Equality cannot mean that one individual has the right to impose his own, or a collective’s, wholly abstract standard of “equality’ upon a society of individuals.  For this (irrationally and contradictory) subordinates the absolute individual to the “group”, contradicting his/her existence entirely.  Which means that instead of making individuals equal, “social equality” denies them entirely.  And once individuals are denied, there is no frame of reference for either “social” or “justice” or “equality” at all.  Once the individual is eliminated from the existence equation, there is no way to define existence in the first place.  And without existence, you have no relative relationship between people or objects; and without those, there are no distinctions.  And without distinctions, there are no definitions, no concepts, and no values.  And without definitions, concepts, and values, there is no reality.

Because I am infinitely me and infinitely not you, how we express ourselves within the environment –being an extension of our unique individual Selves–must also be infinitely different.  But to demand “society” to give us equality of resources in the hopes of fostering an equality of outcomes is logically untenable.  Giving equal amounts of resources to distinct individuals, who are distinct at the the the most basic level, their identity, cannot possibly create equality in any practical sense because equality is not about identity, and doesn’t belong to it.  It is not about how we express our utterly unique and distinct Selves upon the earth.  Rather, equality is about existence.  Or, more formally, t is about sharing the same fundamental metaphysical absolute: existence.

And how do we exist?

As individuals.

And individuality is how we apply and express ourselves upon the environment.  The way we express ourselves, practically, or socially, is via not our existence but via our identity; that is, via that  which we are as infinitely and always distinct from that which we are not.  And in the “social” sense, what we are NOT…is other people.  We are NOT, then, the GROUP.  Because if we are the group, then we are not ourselves…in which case, we loose our identity, and thus the idea of “group”, or “society”, or “justice”, or “equality” (in the false collectivist sense) becomes entirely, and ironically, irrelevant.  You cannot advocate the equality of individuals without also advocating the identity of: “individual”.  And once there are no individuals, there is nothing to make “equal”, in the social sense.  And thus, the only way to make individuals “equal” in the social sense is to destroy that which makes us equal in the real sense (the rational, efficacious, moral sense): our existence.

And this is why all forms of collectivism (e.g. fascism, communism, socialism, religious gnosticism) will always destroy humanity, and horribly, violently so.  Collectivism can never prosper humanity because it fundamentally denies the REALITY of humanity.

Now, this is all, of course, merely the petals on the flower of metaphysics; and also, it’s really important to understand that “existence” as a metaphysical primary breaks down spectacularly once we climb several rungs deeper into the ontological discussion (but not in a way that necessarily effects the veracity of this article’s assertions or its conclusions, I submit, as I mentioned in my disclaimer, above).  Nevertheless, the discussion of absolute equality of existence as an inverse corollary to the absolute distinction of identity is helpful in analyzing the practical applications of collectivist ideologies in general, and specifically the morally defunct and ultimately humanity-razing Marxist notion of “social justice”.

# How Does The Totally Depraved Person “Invite” or “Permit” the Counsel of the Divine Pastoral Authority?: Spiritual Marxism Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal, Part 16

“Or maybe you’ve watched a friend make an ill-advised purchasing decision.  It’s amazing how we can have such clear insight into the poor choices of our friends and family members.  If you’re connected to other people, there’s a good chance somebody has equally clear insight into implications of the decisions you’re faced with.  The only way to benefit from their clear thinking–the only way to avoid the deceitfulness of sin–is to invite their input…

We must understand that solid commitments and deep convictions just aren’t enough…  Who, outside of your family, has permission to talk to you and challenge you, if need be, about the things going on in your life?  Who’s close enough to warn you if you begin to drift?”

(Community:  Your pathway to progress, pp. 33, 34. North Point Ministries, 2008)

Notice the irony implicit in the use of these words…the ones I’ve put into bold print above:  “invite”, “permission”.

Do you see it?

Not yet?  Okay, let me give you another hint.

“–the only way to avoid the deceitfulness of sin–is to invite their input.”

Do you see it now?

Well, certainly some of you do.  For those of you who do not, don’t feel bad.  It’s really not a measure of your perceptive capabilities, nor your intellect.  It’s more a measure of how these spiritual Marxists excel at deception, which is the modern currency with which they buy their followers.  It has taken me years to develop my skills at spotting the fly in the ointment from a mile away, and your erudition will develop as well, in due time.  And once you see it…well, you will not be able to un-see it.  You will be called a skeptic, a doubter, a conspiracy theorist, overreacting, presumptive, and paranoid.  But what you’ll really be is smart.  What you’ll really be is someone who they can no longer exploit in service to there own interminable worldly appetites.

Notice the incongruent and contradictory relationship between a metaphysic which declares that you are, at the very fundamental root of your nature–your being, your existential seed–utterly insufficient to existence to the point where if you are not fully integrated into the Christian Marxist hive (the “church”) you can make no claim to existence at all, nor to the idea that you must “invite” or “give permission” to the collective (“the body”; “the nation”, the “race”, the “tribe”, the “people”, the “workers”…but in this case, specifically, the divine proxy known as the “small group”, which answers directly to the North Point Ministry autocracy known as the Pastorate, ruled by the Protestant Pope, the “Senior Pastor”).

Understand that you cannot make a claim that any one in possession of a “sinful nature”, which is the full sum and substance of his existence, has any natural right to invite people who MUST intervene in order to compel integration to the the group for that person’s “own good” (remember, according to the text I quoted, other people (the collective) inserting themselves into your life is the ONLY way to avoid the deceitfulness of sin).

Here’s a thought:  In order for one to give permission to the group to perform the daily ritual of intervention one must possess the inherent intellectual and psychological faculties necessary to determine truth from fiction, and good from evil.  But notice also how impossible this must be for someone whose nature is TOTALLY Depraved.  Who functions, above all else, always and entirely according to a “sin nature” which is utterly destructive to the individual, to the point where any rational “existence” by such an entirely debauched individual is fully impossible.

You see, since your depravity is infinite and absolute, there is no way to define SELF as somehow distinct from it.  This being the case, there can be no one who is capable of of the kind of intellectual and psychological attributes necessary to discern reality enough in order to make an invitation or to give permission to anything, or anyone, regarding any doctrine whatsoever.  Since you are entirely a function of your depravity, you must be blind to whatever “benevolent” reality North Point Ministries is so arrogantly and deceptively and so fucking blithely asking you to choose to “invite” into your life.   And this is because you, being entirely a function of your absolute depravity, cannot be distinct from it. Which means there is no way for you to discern reality at all, in order to make a value judgement concerning which group you “invite” to speak to you, and to ensure your safe travels upon the road of righteousness…a road which you must inevitably miss unless you “invite” the collective’s leadership to lead (force) you upon it.  But to be able to invite–to be able to give permission–is to be able to see the road to salvation for yourself.  But it is clear by the appeals to the metaphysic of man’s total depravity that this is simply not possible.  According to the doctrine of Total Depravity, and the adherence to the idea of the abject Fall of Man, and the categorical acceptance of man’s Original Sin which thus MUST determine man to self-destruction in the form of infinite and interminable torment in hell fire, man is no more inherently capable of seeing the road to salvation than he is of flying to the moon by flapping his arms.  In which case to “invite” the Small Group to come along and assist him in traversing it is obviously and demonstrably impossible.

Make no mistake then, the words “invite” and “permission” are simply there as tools used by these tyrants to diffuse skepticism.  To deceive people into thinking that there is some kind of cooperation being effected here.  This is the kind of conscious and intentional deception these evil institutions use to coerce otherwise intelligent men and women into surrendering the entirety of their lives and resources to the wolves who in past centuries and in past societies would have skipped the sophism and propaganda altogether and simply used threats of violence to compel people into the pews, and murdered those who refused or dissented.

*

“To invite their input”.

Listen, diplomatic terms like “invite” imply that one by natural right has full possession of his life and property.  Indeed, it implies that the only means by which anyone can legitimately seek to influence you–and the purposes and promises and objectives you have set for yourself by your own ideas and your own volition as an autonomous, fully sentient and fully competent agent–is to seek your permission; to entreat your invitation.  And this not by sophism or by deceit, but by appealing to your sense of Self…that is, by appealing to the idea that what they are proposing is that which brings value to the realization of your own existence, in a way which ultimately benefits YOU.  And by YOU–by Self–I mean one who is fully capable to his or her own existence, by nature, and thus possesses fully the means by which to discern fact from fiction, and therefore good from evil; one who employs reason as a means by which to promote the Self, which is the only rational context of existence, and that promoting Self, then, is the very definition of morality.

A casual examination of the doctrines of Protestant Orthodoxy reveals that this definition of Self utterly incompatible with the religion.  There is simply no fucking way any professing Protestant in good standing can with a straight face describe man’s Self the way I have done so above.  The metaphysic of man as an agent fully aware of himself, fully in possession of epistemological faculties resulting in a right and good discernment of truth, could not be further from the metaphysic of Christianity today, which makes no pretense of any notion of man which does not fully condemn him to abject self-annihilation to the point of rendering man fully non-existent even upon his birth, due to his categorical and singular fusion with the abstractions of “depravity”, “evil”, “fallen”, “insufficient”, “unable”, and “unholy”. In other words, the metaphysical presumptions endemic and categorical in Christianity today (and every day since Augustine, for that matter), which guide the entirety of the doctrinal cannon espoused in churches across the globe scream in bloodcurdling fashion a contradiction to the notion that anyone has any right, or any rational, psychological, or intellectual means, to “invite” or “give permission”.

I mean, the absurdity of it all makes one question whether or not he is awake or still in bed dreaming.

Nevertheless, this is what is touted.  And this is what people accept as reasonable.  This is what Christians pass off as “truth”.

God help us.

Look, it’s very simple.  The church today all but announces with every worship song and in every sermon in every church in America that you have no motherfucking right to self ownership. And that the sum and substance of all evil is to be found in the presumption that man is somehow an actual sentient and fully capable agent, fully divested with and fully sufficient to self ownership and thus possesses the necessary right to his own life…to do with it what he or she pleases in whatever fashion he or she decides, and that since in the name of rational consistency, ALL men and women must have this very same natural right, there can be no such thing as the idea that rationally and morally working out one’s existence can somehow violate the right of another human being to manifest his or her own existence; and that this, and nothing else, is the rational means to both individual existence, and the co-existence of individuals with other individuals.

No.  The church today will die, literally and figuratively, upon this hill:  that existence is fully a function of a metaphysic contrary to self-ownership and the sufficiency to one’s own existence, and that without the FORCE (the violent coercion) by those men who don title’s such as “Minister” or “Pastor” or “Father” and appoint themselves as divine proxies and then proceed to demand that the laity make no practical distinction between proxy and Deity, there can be no such thing as a human race at all.

So know this:

When they say “invite”, they mean they will invite themselves.

When they say “permission”, they mean they will permit themselves.

They will help themselves to a full portion of your life and property, because that, by their own doctrine, is their divine right.  And whatever you want?  Whatever you decide on your own behalf?

Doesn’t exist.

# “Existence Exists”: The axiom which fails its own assertion, and why the “Law of Identity” and “Law of Non-Contradiction” collectivize reality, and thus do NOT identify and DO contradict

A simple Google search using this criteria “existence exists” yielded this result at the top of the page, from Importance of Philosophy.com.

“Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing.  At the core of every thought is the observation that “I am aware of something”.  The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists–that existence exists–existence being all that which exists.  Also, to grasp the thought, “I am aware of something” you must be conscious.  Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth.  To deny existence is to say that something doesn’t exist.  A denial of existence is only possible if existence exists.

To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity.  A thing cannot exist without existing as something, otherwise it would be nothing and it would not exist.  In the statement “something exists”, the something refers to the axiom of identity and the exists  refers to the axiom of existence.  They cannot be separated and are like two sides of the same coin or two ways of understanding the same axiom.”

At first cursory glance, this notion of “existence exists” is rock solid.  So much so that scarcely anyone tries to disprove it, let alone succeeds.  The question begged then is: If this metaphysical axiom is so thoroughly rational, and so thoroughly complete, why has its effects not been felt more distinctly (if at all) upon the world today, in all aspects of man’s life, and particularly  his ethics and his politics?  Why does the world seem to slide faster and faster with each passing moment into the abyss of collectivist ideologies which demand a categorical refutation of such a metaphysic, whereby nothing at all can be said to exist except it be thus declared by a few men who have been “called”, somehow, to lead the unenlightened (un-elected) masses into right thinking and behavior by appealing not to reason, not to notions of “existence”, but to their right to possess a monopoly of violence, granted them via their authority as a function of their priestly position? For it seems that at the root of every major political, social, or economical school of thought today is the idea that the human individual belongs first to some collective–an abstraction–by which he obtains his identity:  the Race, the Religion (the Saved, the Called), the Sovereign Will, the Laws of Nature, the Party, the [select your flavor of socio-economic category], the Nation, the Gang, the Club…etc., etc.  You get the idea.

For truly if man is first and foremost his collective then he cannot ever really consider himself apart from it.  For the collective (or in actuality, those who are somehow infused with the “enlightenment” of the abstraction in order that they may speak for it, as the mediator between the Ideal and the Masses) is in charge of not only what man does but who he is, and therefore, of what he thinks.  Which means the individual cannot have a unique and distinct existence, which means that he cannot claim that any particular thing exists, because he cannot possibly be in the epistemological place to know, having no unique SELF by which to reference the definition of what it is being claimed to exist. In such a collectivist metaphysic then, it is impossible to make the claim that “existence exists” because “existence” is the sole jurisdiction of an abstraction of which man the individual can have nothing to do.  Because there is really no such thing as “man” proper, himself.

Keeping that in mind, to claim that existence exists we must proclaim that man, the individual, is capable of apprehending that which is said to exist, in and of itself, because he, himself, has his own distinct existence.  So, by this, he is in a position to know.  Since he IS, he can know his environment and all the things in it, by the context of him SELF, which is not collective, but is, in fact, distinct and singular.

In short, if we say “existence exists” we must concede that each individual possesses, and is sufficiently capable of, his own autonomous existence and therefore cannot first and foremost be the extension of a collective which functions by the “enlightenment” of a select ecclesiasty on behalf of the abstract Ideal which is said to be the source of all reality.

Therefore, it would seem, at least if you take the Aristotellian’s and Objectivist’s and Empricist’s word for it, that existence exists = individual identity = the individual as the moral and rational reference.  And this sounds very good, and indeed, the conclusion that the Self of the individual is the Standard of Truth and thus Morality is the only rationally consistent metaphysical, epistemological, and moral conclusion.

So…er…why is this not the overwhelmingly prevailing metaphysic today?  Why, if “existence exists” is so gosh darn impenetrable and flawlessly cohesive an absolute, as the smug little blurb posted above implies, do so many people obviously reject it?  Are they all imbeciles?  Are they all indoctrinated or programmed by their Marxists handlers?  Are they all willfully depraved?  Are they too committed to the lie? Do they have too much of their life’s blood at stake in the Marxist game to concede the genius and irrefutable reasoning of Aristotle and all his progenies?

Or…could it be something else?

Could it be that the assumption that “existence exists” is woefully inadequate at best as a metaphysical axiom?  Could it be that for years that what has been thought to be the final word on metaphysical truth is actually not, in fact, the final word.  Or, even worse, perhaps is fundamentally an appeal to the metaphysical “reality” of abstract Ideals in disguise, which demands a collectivist existence for each and every one of us and thus dooms us to a life of exploitation and annihilation?

For me, I aver that it is this last one.  That “existence exists”, because it groups all things into a fundamental abstract category of “existence”, must itself be inadequate when it comes to defining the very “things” it claims exist.

Look at it this way:

According to the notion that “existence exists”, what defines things is their collective, not individual, existence. However, notice that the notion also appeals to distinct or individual identity.  This poses a problem because it incorporates a fundamental contradiction.

You see, what exists individually, if it truly has a “nature” or “identity” which is fundamentally distinct from all other things, cannot actually co-exist with those other things unless its “existence” ultimately subordinates said nature/identity.  And thus the contradiction is this: A thing cannot exist absolutely distinct from other things by its “nature” and yet at the same time posses absolutely equal and indistinguishable “existence” as that of all other things which are said to exist.  In such a case, we are forced to somehow reconcile distinction and inclusion; collective existence with singular identity within a given context: the object in question.  This…just doesn’t work.  A is A, so goes the claim.  However A cannot be utterly A if A shares existence collectively with B, C, D, and so on.  And if it doesn’t share its existence…meaning if its existence is not fundamentally identical, and thus fundamentally indistinct, from all other objects then the claim that existence exists cannot be universal to all objects.  Since all objects only possess existence as a function of their own distinct nature, they cannot actually co-exist since the distinction is absolute.  In which case, existence as an axiom is impossible.  However, if the distinction of identity is subordinated to collective existence, then A is only A subjectively so; meaning A cannot be A unless A is also B, C, D and so on, inexorably connected by collective, indistinguishable existence.

And this is what I mean when I say that the metaphysic of “existence” is simply inadequate, and that’s being kind.  In its attempt to define existence by appealing to fundamental distinctions of nature it commits a moral logically fallacy…an irreparable contradiction in terms which renders the metaphysic a complete failure.  Certainly, it is in no way an axiom.  For any idea which relies upon contradiction in order to validate itself as “true” becomes irrelevant, and therefore, not true by definition.  For that which is utterly irrelevant (meaning it cannot possess even a contextual relevancy) cannot have any objective purpose in reality or in actuality.   Even according to the Aristotelian standards upon which it is based the idea “existence exists” is a failure.

Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction are Not Compatible with the Metaphysic of Existence:

Once one claims “existence”, one must answer the question “what exists?”  And as soon as the that question enters into the equation, the notion of existence as the irreducible metaphysic collapses.  Because what is distinct, absolutely, by individual “identity”, cannot be integrated by absolute collective “existence”.  The metaphysic thus fails Aristotle’s Law of both Identity AND Non-Contradiction.  It fails the law of Identity because the object which is collective by its existence must be equal and indistinguishable from all other objects in order for existential interaction and integration to occur, and therefore it can have no individual or distinct identity, because it is always and fundamentally sharing the collective existence.  Further, it fails the law of Non-Contradiction on both the ontological and semantic levels.  An object is not ontologically distinct if it shares existence; and it is not semantically distinct if it is conceptually X because it is NOT Y.  Meaning, an object, like a rock, cannot be defined as a rock in a vacuum of itself.  A rock, in a vacuum, has no relevant nature…no relevant identity.  It becomes infinitely a rock, in which case, “rock-ness” is meaningless.  Infinite rock is functionally equal to NO or ZERO rock.  A rock is only relevantly, and thus rationally and truthfully, a rock if it can be juxtaposed to something which is NOT a rock:  This is a rock: that is a sandwich.  Only in this context can a thing’s nature…a thing’s identity, be relevant and therefore true.

So, in essence, “existence exists” is really a collectivist platitude, which demands that all things which are said to individually exist ultimately share, collectively, both existence and identity. Which means that fundamentally there is no such actual thing as either.

And this is why the metaphysic of “existence” has failed, is failing, and will always fail.  It fails the very test of its own assertion.  That is, it claims one thing but demands something else.  It claims the truth of the individual but demands obedience to the collective.