Tag Archives: Metaphysics

You’re Not Saved by Being a Christian, You’re Saved by Being YOU: The lie of collective salvation

In the Christian Church, I don’t care which denomination—it doesnt matter, they all share the same foundational metaphysics—what does it mean to be saved?

Now, you might think that this question is a prologue to a deep and meaningful disquisition of Christian soteriology. However, I can assure you that this is quite uneccesary…for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the vast majority of Christians find such a thing completely useless (and couldn’t even begin to comprehend it even if they wanted to…which they don’t). They fancy themselves far too divinely enlightened and practical (they are in fact neither) in their theology to bother with something quite this abstract. In this case, then, I will answer the question according to the “enlightened” and “practical” faith of the Christain church:

It means to believe in Jesus.

But that seems awfully vague, and it is, so we must press a little.

What does it mean, exactly, to believe in Jesus?

It means to renounce your sins and vow to obey God’s moral commands. It is a commitment to reject your “natural” self—your “pre-salvation” you—and to be “born again”.

Now, here is where the whole thing goes off the rails, wheels flying wildly in all directions. Because here we get into the metaphysics of it…though most Christians, to their own folly, don’t even recognize the word. And this is why discussing soteriology with Christians is a complete waste of time. The whole religion dissolves into mysticism; and “faith’ becomes an antonym to “reason” and “sensibility”. Interestingly enough, and sadly, this is also where Christianity goes completely extra-biblical…or anti-bibilcal, really. In other words, there is little to nothing of Christ in any of the Christian ideas one would normally associate with salvation .

The root assumption behind salvation in Christian theology (or rather, ideology) is that the “born-again” you is both fundamentally different from and fundamentally the same as the the “natural you”. And it is this metaphysical contradiction which undermines the faith, and reduces it to either quaint novelty (as in the Amish or Mennonites), anodyne and stultifying cynicism (“middle America” mainline churches)  or mendacious, civilization-wrecking autocracy (Augustine, Luther, Calvin); and all degrees within and among these. You see, the “old you” by dint of birth is unable to please God due to the pervasive wickedness which is a function of your base existence, period. In other words, the very fact that you are is why you are evil and cannot please God naturally. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” the Chruch perversly and irrationally interprets to mean that the very birth of men condemns them to fall under God’s wrath. Man’s “original sin” is that he is born at all. You qua you—you as existant—is evil incarnate.

Of course Christians will take issue with my use of the world “interpret”, claiming that they are simply declaring what the Bible “plainly states”. But this comes from the false belief that what is written in the Bible is somehow immune from interpretation—that somehow the Bible is a closed system of meaning. That it’s a truth in and of itself and thus outside of man, and therefore it is a truth that man must be “enlightened to”, as opposed to something written specifically for him and from him and speaking to his particular existential frame of reference.

This is mystic nonsense—an iteration of Christianity’s pagan-gnostic roots. The Bible is written in language, and as such it is necessarily interpreted by those who posses the innate ability and inherent reference to give it meaning: man. Christians do not simply “declare” the Bible, despite what they may think and claim, they interpret it. And they do so badly.

So, prior to salvation you can do no good thing because of your fundamental depravity. Now, I understand Christians will object to this, arguing that, on the contrary, you can do good but that you have a “tendency” to “trend” (by which they mean inexorably) toward evil; however, this claim does not suffer rational scrutiny. You see, according to the metaphysics, man’s evil is not at root a function of what he does but what he is. And since what he is is evil, then all he does is evil by definition, no matter how “good” it may appear. Because man’s nature is utterly fallen, and “fallen” is the place from which all men are categorically spawned, there is no moral difference between the man who runs an orphanage and the man who burns one down. Both men are equally evil in root nature, both men require salvation in equal measure. and thus what they do must be morally valued equally. Ethics always follow metaphysics, and actions are valued by essence, NOT the other way around.

Man’s existential evil makes him unable to be good, which means that he cannot choose Christ…for such a choice, even if made by him, would necessarily be meaningless. Absolute Evil cannot conjoin with the perfect Good of God’s Son, no matter how much it wants or chooses to. A mystic conversion is the only “solution” to the existential conundrum in which man finds himself. Hence the get-out-of-reason-free cards of election and predestination. God arbitrarily—as far as man is concerned—chooses those who shall choose Him…and if this seems like good old fashioned contradiction, that’s because it is. So don’t waste your time trying to make sense of it. Those who are saved thus become “new creatures”, no longer defined by their collective existential depravity, but by their collective identity as “God’s chosen”. In other words, it has nothing to do with what a man chooses, individually, to do or not do, according to his own singular reference and volition of “I’ or “me”; no, his new identity in Christ is merely a function of some mystical and mysterious conversion from existential “evil” to existential “good”.

In as much as man’s “evil” has nothing to do with what he thinks about himself or does for himself from himself, but everything to do with simply what he is at root…his evil, thus, is in a sense “outside” of him. He has no choice in it…his choice is irrelevant. Everything he does is evil, no matter what it is, because he IS evil. And likewise his “new nature” in Christ—that is, it has nothing to do with him. What he chooses or thinks, in and of his own individual Self, is irrelevant to God’s determining power. Man is a bystander to both his damnation (from brith) and his salvation (from “new birth”). In this sense then, his salvation is collective, NOT individual. It is an Ideal into which he is gang-pressed, not a choice he makes for and from himself. The proof of his salvation is his membership in the Church; and the Church is the collective institution which is given the authority by God to manifest the salvation Ideal upon the earth.

So what does this mean post-salvation for the new Christian? They have been chosen…they are saved, no longer totally depraved, right? No longer victims of their natural, sinister, sinful selves. They are free…free to choose and do good, right?

Well, yes and no, and thus we have more of the same contradiction which undermines all rationality within Christianity. The same rational inconsistencies which plague pre-salvation man and his election unto and into Christ following him to salvation. Man is saved in spite of himself…he does not actually choose Christ because this requires a natural and innate ability to recognize good, to choose it, and to follow through with it, and this ability he does not have because he IS Evil. And this being the case, by what means or power can man, now saved, recognize and do any good thing? By the same power which saved him, of course—that is, God’s grace. Which of course, like salvation itself, has nothing fundamentally to do with man qua man. By ”God’s grace” Christians mean God’s absolute, all-pervasive power over all of Creation, to determine it to its inevitable divine conclusion. So the “good” that the saved man is, and the “good” he recognizes and obeys are an essence and action which are not really of him at all. In short, it’s fair to say that post-salvation man is still just as vile and wicked as he was pre-salvation. Nothing has changed but semantics. Man is not “changed”, but rather, “covered”, which is as close a euphemism as you can get I supppose.

When we are talking metaphysics…when we are talking about the very root essence of a thing, this essence is utter and absolute. It is not transmutable; it is not transient; it is fundamental. It is the infinite core of what a thing IS, by which it exists in reality in the first place. What a thing is existentially is that immutable core from which it exists, period. And thus “this” cannot become “that”. If man is evil, existentially, before salvation, then he is likewise evil, existentially, after. And there is no argument one can make to the contrary which is not ultaimtely going to be punted into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”. There is no means except the surrendering of one’s sense where one can reasonably declare that Absolute A becomes Absolute B.

And Christians know this, at least on some level, which is why they insist that even the saved can still commit sin. You get sin from where? Sin nature. Otherwise, it’s not sin, its just bad or immoral action. To describe an act of sin is to describe the act according to a nature that pervades man at his very root. Christianity recognizes that man’s immutable sin nature follows him into his salvation, which is why the church encourages the laity to “preach the Gospel to themselves every day”. Even Christians need to be reminded how they can do no good thing, and to recognize salvation as a life of “grace”, not individual and volitonal moral living, as though man is capable of such a thing. Try being a Christian and taking credit for any moral or rational choice, and proclaiming that you thus justly earn the reward of such a choice. You will be patently and shamelessly accused of rank heresy on the spot…of ignoring or being blind to God’s grace. Though, to be fair, they may say it nicely. But keep it up and see what happens. Christians have short patience for rejections of “grace”.

Christians never dawdle in reminding each other that it is foolish pride for them to consider the idea that they, at any time, pre or post-salvation, possess any inherent ability to do any good thing. Indeed, the mark of a false Christian is one who believes that he is somehow  good in himself. He is not. He is evil. His salvation was God’s mysterious grace, and likewise whatever good he does or befalls him after salvation is entirely a product of that same grace. Man’s nature never fundamentally changes. He is saved entirely in spite of himself, and likewise his salvation is “worked out” in spite of himself. In other words, there is nothing of You qua You that has anything at all to do with why God chose to save you, and how God manifests this salvation in your life. You qua You—the “I” of “My Self”—is utterly evil, and thus must be completely sidelined before, during, and after salvation.

So back to our original question: What does it mean to be saved?

Well, the real answer is that it means nothing for YOU, because YOU are nothing. You qua You—You, the Individual—are exchanged for the collective Ideal of what it means to be “Christian”. “Christian” is a collective. “You” are now an indistinguishable component of the Church, which is the physical incarnation of the Ideal. “You” have been aborted by the metaphysics. Only the Collective matters.

This is salvation.

And this is a lie.

END

 

How Existence Destroys Reality

Ability underwrites all action. Action, itself, being necessarily relative (that is, relatively discerned—which corollates to a conceptual definition of what is acting and how, which corellates to an Observer) can imply (epistemological) distinction as spawning from metaphysical (or “existential”) equality.  Relativity, you see, is corollary at the metaphysical level to Ability, and thus distinctions in actions, whilst they imply and corollate to epistemological differences (epistemology being the category where objects, or “things which are” enter into the philosophical paradigm ), do not imply differences in root metaphysical (“existential”) value and essence, and this because of the necessary metaphysics spawning from Ability as Primary, as opposed to Existence.

Existence, as metaphysical primary, is not actually being…not actually existing, because ability (to exist) is not implied, and thus neither is action. And therefore, relativity, a necessary metaphysical foundation of meaning (truth, or the object definition of what is) is likewise not implied, making epistemological distinctions between things (which exist) impossible. That is, from existence as primary we cannot logically draw the conclusion that existence exists—that it does existence—because if that were the case—if existence actually existed—then the ability to exist would be necessitated as that which underwrites existence, thus supplanting it as the metaphysical primary (which it does).

Existence, then, as primary, is not an act from ability, but merely an Is from an Is. The metaphysical primary becomes a rank abstraction: Is qua Is.

Existence doesn’t act (exist) because it’s able, but rather it Is because it Is. In other words, existence as primary is tautological…a rational error, from which no truth and certainly no reality, can be drawn.

”Is qua Is” cannot mean equal metaphysical (“existential”) value and essence whilst also correlating to and implying epistemological distinctions (different and distinct things which exist) because epistemological distinctions (by the Observer) cannot be made absent action and relativity rooted in Ability. By making existence passive, it also becomes monolithic and intrinsically indivisible, and therefore implies that at the most fundamental, absolute level the things which exist are all the same thing—that being “existence”. But of course the idea that different things are really the same thing is meaningless folderol…contradiction. So with existence as the metaphysical primary we have a root singularity from which all reality springs which is undefinable, and therefore unknowable, because it precludes existential distinctions between and amongst things, and thus no thing can actually be said to exist at all, in which case existence itself cannot be said to exist. Existence, as the metaphysical primary, becomes nothing, and all of reality with it.

 

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

How Aristotle is Both Right and Wrong About “A is A”

One may understandably take issue with my maxim that A is only A relative to B…because that which does not exist relative to anything else cannot be compared, and without comparison there is no definition, so you can’t claim that it actually exists. In other words, you cannot say what A is unless you can say what it is NOT. Making what A is NOT (e.g. B) an existential requirement for A, making A’s existence inexorably bound to B’s. This wrecks any distinction between A and B with respect to existence as a metaphysical primary. Meaning, existence implies no actual distinction between those things which are said to exist. Which destroys A and B entirely at the level of their root existence. This truth does not make me a subjectivist or proponent of consciousness as a primary. It merely makes me perceptive.

Now, having said that, this is correct in a sense:  that my point above does not, itself, provide for the full reconciliation of the existential paradox: Achieving a plurality of existence from a single metaphysical primary.  How are there distinct objects, relating to one another in an identical and absolute metaphysical context…that is, being direct functions of the same singular metaphysical root, and yet also being entirely and rationally distinct?

However, I submit that being correct here: That A must actually be A, utterly and distinctly so, if we shall assert that it is NOT B–does not make me wrong here: That A cannot in fact be A absent the relative existence of B (because that which cannot be compared cannot be defined; and that which cannot be defined cannot be said to exist). This makes A as much a function of B as it makes A utterly distinct from B.

The failure of Aristotelian apologists to observe and address this paradox is (partly) why Aristotelian metaphysics have ultimately lead nowhere except a repeat of the historic cycle of individuals conceding to collectivist ideologies, creating tyrannical states which eventually implode, killing millions in the process, with the survivors then rising from the ashes only to start the whole nightmare over again.

That A must be A (in an appeal to Aristotle) as a prerequisite for relatively comparing it to B does not in fact disprove the that A cannot in fact be A unless it is relatively compared to B.

It’s a chicken-and–egg type deal. Aristotelian metaphysics rest essentially upon one half of the paradox, and thus at best they tell only half the story.

The sum and substance of my journey into metaphysics has been:

A. to observe the aforementioned metaphysical paradox and the necessary resultant rational and practical insufficiencies of both Primacy of Existence and Primacy of Consciousness metaphysical models, and…

B. to offer a solution to the paradox in the form of a new, more effective primary: Ability.

A greater examination of that, and various related topics, will be undertaken in subsequent articles.

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”.

 

 

The Fallacy and Futility of the Vote: Is society a function of you, or you of society? (The intransigence of the metaphysical axiom, and its necessary determinism)

Is the individual a direct function of the society or is society a direct function of the individual? The answer to this question will determined how a society functions, as well as the “logical conclusion” of the society with respect to the life or death of the denizens within it.  That is, depending on which format we choose, the conclusion will either be a perpetual realization of freedom and life for humanity, or humanity’s destruction.

The conclusion, you see, is inevitable; we should not waste our time trying to think of ways we might prevaricate around the necessary end to the premise.  One way or another, and sooner or later, the logical conclusion of a given premise will be realized; and in this case, the metaphysical premise will dictate the outcome, truly life or death, of the individual–of the society of individuals–which holds it.  The premises accepted and employed in a society with respect to the ontology of man is, in fact, what defines reality for him.

Never mind the specious logic of the Objectivists or the Empiricists…there is no such thing as an “objective reality OUTSIDE of man”…at least, not in the idealistic sense they describe, where the environment “outside” of human beings possesses its own self-contained definitions, purposes, and relevancy.  Another self-evident problem with the notion of “objective reality outside of man” is that it thus implicitly avers that man is not, in fact, objectively real; and by this they man that man’s consciousness is inherently subjective–not possessing the inherent capability of ascertaining the “objective truth” of the material universe “outside of him” (though they will claim otherwise–that man IS able to apprehend reality via his senses; an impossible notion given that, according to the root idea, there is an absolute distinction between reality “outside” of man and man’s conscious mind (presumably, the place where his senses end and his consciousness begins)).  Which…if you believe this, any Objectivist or Empirical assertion you hold is irrelevant by definition. If you are not objectively real, then any notion to which you ascribe has no functional bearing on, well…anything.

Contrary to this, I assert that all of reality (what is real in the meaningful, relevant sense to MAN, which is the only sense which matters, because man is, absolutely, and only, HIMSELF; for that is his context, period) is a function of how we define man.  Either man is fundamentally his own singular existential reference…meaning, your conscious awareness of SELF is the absolute and immutable frame of reference for your existence, and for all that you can claim is real (it must be real TO YOU, or it cannot be defined as real at all), or your awareness is a direct function of something “outside” of you…some other absolute and immutable frame of reference, like the “laws of physics/nature which govern”, or “God’s divine/sovereign Will/Plan”.  In the societal sense, speaking of geopolitical nation states, the immutable frame reference and compelling force is the authoritative mandate of the appointed proxies of the Collective abstraction, which may be referred to as the “common good”; the “people”; the “nation”; the “tribe”; the “country”; or some social demographic (“minorities”, “disadvantaged”, “business elite”, “aristocracy”, “middle class”, “workers”, etc.).

Every person has, I submit, in his or her mind, already conceded the metaphysical “cause and effect” relationship in one direction or the other. Every human being who has reached awareness–who possesses the ability to articulate a distinction between himself and his surroundings–has embraced either the idea of the individual as a function of the group/collective/society or the the group/collective/society as a function of the individual.  Another way of stating it, is that every individual has conceded to the idea that he or she is a direct extension of his/her surroundings–his/her group affiliation (and these affiliations can be defined and categorized in many ways, but in this case, I mean “society”, or “nation”, etc.) or vice versa.

The ostensible, and completely spurious compromises people make as they integrate the mutually exclusive dichotomy (SELF vs. Collective Society) are nothing more that equivocations upon the inherent and necessary contradictions present as individuals attempt existence within the social structures of a collection of human beings all governed by a central ruling authority which possesses, above all, and at its very irreducible foundation, the source of all its power, a monopoly of force (violence) to compel individual outcomes in service to what it propagandizes as “the good of the many”, but what is in reality simply its own power and wealth.  Because, you see, in reality there can be nothing else to which the monopolizers of force can compel the citizens.  Its all about the logical and unavoidable conclusion, the idea of which I began the article, proceeding from the metaphysical/ontological premise: “what is man?”.  I will explain this in greater detail later in the article.

*

Both the fundamental individualist and the fundamental collectivist will entertain various contradictions in a lifelong, but futile, effort to avoid the inevitable destruction of a society ruled by a government intent on serving the “common good”, which is purely an abstraction and does not actually exist in any material or effectual sense, which is why such a government must eventually destroy the very individual citizens it claims to represent.  For example:

The law-abiding individualist will pay his taxes, obey stop lights even when there is no one else around, consent to warrant-less inspections and interrogations at sobriety, immigration, and public safety checkpoints; he will vote for his rulers in an ostensible display of democratic “freedom”, applauding this brazenly collectivist activity as a patriotic obligation to which all Americans are bound in order to honor the altruistic sacrifice of the Founding Fathers.  He will pledge allegiance to an anthropomorphized rectangular piece of cloth and dye, asserting irrationally that it somehow has a distinct and inherent value apart from his own individual presence in society, not understanding or not admitting that any such symbol only has meaning insofar as individuals find perpetual and absolute value to and for themselves in the society it represents, and that it literally has no relevancy beyond this.  He will consent to being pressed into military service for the sake of protecting his “nation” as though the nation has any value for him once its rulers demand that he kill another human being in service to it, or to openly and actively support those who do, under threat of violence (incarceration, seizure of property).   He will fund schools for the masses because he accepts that it is in the best interest of “society” if its “individual” citizens–again, ignoring the contradiction–are educated so that they, collectively, can compete with the rest of the geopolitical collectives of the world.  He will say “yes” when asked if he is an American, or a Unites States citizen, when crossing borders, as though such information is fundamentally relevant to anything at all except the irrelevant and irrational idea of abstraction (society/country/nation) as reality—as though being a direct function of a group does anything but contradict his own unique and distinctive existence.  Yes, the individualist will do all of these things because that’s what a good, law-abiding individual does.  He concedes the contradiction that being a good individual means complying with the strictures of society as dictated by the purveyors of force  (rulers) who compel him in service to the “community”; which he also understands (and yet implicitly denies), being an individualist, has no relevance beyond his own unique existential frame of reference: himSELF.

The collectivist, on the other hand, will also speak of the virtues of the vote. The good, modern American neo-Marxist known as today’s democratic party affiliate, will vehemently deny that our society cannot possibly be totalitarian, you see, or inherently destructive to the very essence of individuality, because each one of us gets a vote.  Each one of us gets a “say”.  Indeed this Marxist will even declare that it is our individual duty to vote our “free” conscience for those who will rule the collective, and force us into compliance with its mandates which are dictated by the monopolizers of force, even though at the very root metaphysical/ontological level, the collective can have no actual interest in the individual beyond their forced sacrifice to its abstract ideal.  And because we have the “right” to vote, and the “right” to speak, there must be, so the loose logic goes, inherent deference to the individual amongst the collective of society.

The collectivist will respect the rights of everyone to choose their own way, to employ their own expressions of morality and truth, so long as it poses no relevant or substantive affront to the epistemological and moral plumb line of the “common good”, as he arbitrarily defines it  He will tell us that each one of us can do whatever we want, and assemble and discourse with whomever we choose, so long as we don’t “discriminate” against whatever societal group the collectivist has deemed “special” or “protected” according to their subjective criteria.  In America the special groups which are seen as those to which a forced deference must be compelled by the ruling authorities have ranged anywhere from the business elites and early American aristocrats, military service members, and various Christian denominations, to the poor, the racial minorities, various non-Christian religious groups, and non-hetero sexual orientations.  And yet the collectivist either does not see or willfully ignores the irony and contradiction which says that one has a right to assemble and discourse and exchange value with anyone they choose and yet may not discriminate, as if there is no equivalency between the freedom to assemble and freedom to discriminate.

The collectivist will extol the virtues of the middle-class Main Street shop owner and then in the same breath will decry that shop owner when he or she will not serve, with his own time and his own property, members of some arbitrary “protected” class, and will demand government violence for the purposes of compelling that individual shop owner, with his or her “rights” of assembly and affiliation, into compliance with the collectivist “moral standard”.

The collectivist (even a “libertarian” one) will make overtures to the rights of individuals to worship as they choose, and yet will cry for the blood and incarceration of government workers who refuse to comply with a given demand that they affiliate, through their government post, with this group or that because it violates their religious conscience.  And instead of asking the more important and relevant question of why a government employee is in the position of having to violate his or her religious conscience in the first place (as though government has any rational business being involved in any relationship between individuals where no direct violations of human beings are occurring) they will cheer when violence is meted out against the individual who dares oppose the collective will.

But none of these equivocations, from either the individualist or the collectivist, unravel or parse the fundamental metaphysic involved in the root premise.  And this is because there is no such thing as compromise between, or an integration/intersection of, the ideas that man is SELF and man GROUP.  There is no middle ground.  There is no vacuum of space which separates you, the individual, and society.  One is a direct and uninterrupted function of the other. Period.  Any attempt to reconcile them practically will always result in the destruction of humanity, because once you compromise the individual metaphysic, you have no choice in the end but to compromise the individual himself.  There is no other outcome.  It makes no difference how much you desire or plead for there to be another outcome; how much you dream, or demand it.  Once you have chosen your premise, there are no other choices possible with respect to the necessary existential conclusion.  If man is not himself, he is nothing…he is not, and he is dead.  All will and choice is, from that moment on, fundamentally irrelevant.  A metaphysical, ontological premise will NOT be denied its conclusion.  It does not matter what you think or do or say or how hard you work.  Once you’ve conceded the irreducible, there is nowhere else to go except where it will lead you.  The premise you concede about what you are at your foundation determines your end.  You get either death or life.  And that, as they say, is that. The only way to avoid the necessary end of one irreducible premise is to concede its rank and polar opposite.

If you are SELF, then SELF is what you will reap.  You will reap the necessary reality of the singular, irreducible context and standard of truth and morality:  YOUR infinite existential, metaphysically singular context of YOU, alone.  Infinite and forever.  Life everlasting.  If you are NOT SELF…if you are “group”, then you will be sacrificed.  Death everlasting, starting from the very moment you decide that you are not, in fact, you at all.  That you, as an extension of the group, cannot possibly have a frame of reference for anything, because you are material and group is abstract, and there is no way for one to experience existence from the context of the other, because they are entirely exclusive.  Your only obligation is to become empty, so that what you “really” are–the collective–will “live”.  Whatever that means. Because, well…you cannot really know, can you?

*

The foundation of human conceptual thinking is, I submit, comprised of two basic categories.  The first is the material concept, and this category is comprised of the visceral “objects” humans can sense…the physical environment/universe, if you will, or what some empiricists, rationalists, and Objectivists might call “objective reality”.  To an extent, this is a satisfactory description.  It’s a bit narrow and lacks depth in terms of the metaphysics, but it will do fine for our purposes here.  Concepts in this category would be your concrete nouns:  tree, cat, car, skyscraper, Huey Lewis and the News, etc. The other category is comprised of the abstract concepts…those things which are not visceral, and cannot be observed.  Blue, left, fear, joy…as well as other, more complicated and arcane abstractions, such as mathematics, metaphysics, politics, public relations, doctrine, and the laws of nature.

With respect to “collectives” what is too often and falsely assumed is that the “collective” or the “masses” or the “group” is a material concept to be found in objective reality when in fact it is an abstraction.  Government, the Church, the Nation, the Race, the Workers, the People, Society…these are not material, but abstract. They are immaterial.

In other words, there is no such thing as a group, per se.  The nation or the community or society doesn’t actually exist in material reality.  The “people”, “the community”, “society”, the “Church body”, doesn’t take up space.  It doesn’t have volume.  It cannot be touched or felt or seen.  It isn’t there, is the point.  What I am saying is that once you remove the individual human being, there can be no group…no collective.  For the individual person is the only actual, physical component of any group.  There is no such thing as a “society” which doesn’t begin and end with the individual.  Subtract the person, and the collective becomes meaningless, and therefore, impossible.

Thus, all collectives are a direct function of the individual, not the other way around.  So, to ask an individual to make concessions to the group is to ask what is material…or, better said, to ask what is real to sacrifice itself to what is not.  To ask an individual to provide (often at gunpoint by the monopolizers of force) a measure of his property to a group of “others”, based upon a collective commonality that cannot be exactly and equally applied to each individual within that collective, is inherently irrational and must therefore be destructive.  It is impossible, you see, because there can be no collective equality when the collective is comprised of metaphysically and ontologically distinct, and infinitely so, individuals.   What I mean by this is you cannot make equal that which is infinitely and singularly distinct and fully of itself.  Each human being is distinctly himself, at the metaphysical level.  At this level–at the level of being–there is no connection to another.  It simply does not exist.  Each person is utterly themselves; the beginning and end of their own essence; existence; being; IS.  The idea of “equality” amongst group members then is impossible because it cannot be rationally applied.  You cannot apply an equality of individuals without violating the singularly individual metaphysic.  And this violation occurs when the collective metaphysic is applied to individuals, making them a function of GROUP, not of SELF. And once this is done we are forced to concede that the individual person is not an individual at all, but is in fact a direct function of the abstraction of “group” (“nation”, “society”, “race”, “community”, etc.).  With respect to your individuality then, what is declared “real” is the abstraction of GROUP.  What is not empirical–what cannot be sensed; what is not, in fact, physical, becomes the “real” truth, and you, as a physical, singular self-aware agent, becomes the abstraction.  The illusion.  The absolute servant of the collective “reality”.  He who thinks and observes himself as one, is not, in fact, himself.  He is everyone.  He is all.  He is society.

But how can it be rationally argued that the collective is not in fact fundamentally grounded in the individual? How does the collective exist once the individual is removed?  How is it possible to arrive at EVERYONE from a metaphysic which demands the existence of NO ONE (no individual)?  How do you get a group of people when the most basic and smallest component from which that group is derived is eradicated from the existential equation?

Well…you don’t.  It is impossible, full stop.  And this is why ALL nations, governed by a central authority responsible for governing on behalf of the “people”, and “society”, and the “common good”, no matter how ostensibly benign, no matter how rationally sound its Constitution may seem, no matter how benevolent its intentions are, must inevitably dissolve into the oppression, exploitation, and eventual murder of the individual on a mass scale.  Once each one of us becomes a metaphysical function of an abstraction like “society”, there can be no society at all.  We all must be sacrificed to society, because our self-evident individual material presence, and our undeniable singular conscious frame of reference–the existential reference of SELF–becomes a rank offense and affront to the collective of society.  The abstraction is absolute.  IT, not the individual, is the infinite metaphysical singularity.  Only it gets to exist, for “real”.  And as long as there are individuals out there saying the word “I”, its fullness cannot be realized.  Humanity must be destroyed so that the fullness of the “truth” of the collective can be realized.

*

A common refrain from those with left leaning politics is the idea that “without society” the individual would and could not be in a position to acquire the wealth and assets which they wish to commandeer at gunpoint (via the State’s monopoly of force (violence)) in order to redistribute it to the arbitrarily selected “special” classes.  This argument is nothing more than an appeal to the Marxist collectivist metaphysic I discussed above.  You see, the basis of this argument is the idea that the individual needs society–that it is the abstraction which allows for the existence, survival, and prosperity of the actual, physical, visceral individual human being.  Of course this is so obviously fallacious it is a wonder this argument gets any traction at all. But nevertheless, and unfortunately, it does.

Since the collective, or “society”, is impossible and irrelevant without its requisite smallest component–the individual–it is the apogee of sophism and irrationality to argue that somehow the individual, who rightly and reasonably employs the apparatus of “society” to his own benefit, affirmation, protection, and prosperity, is somehow, in turn, obligated to sacrifice himself to society…an idea which could have no relevance and certainly no practical application absent his existence.  Nevertheless this is the socialist/Marxist/collectivist ideology rooted in the requisite collectivist metaphysic.  It is the idea that somehow, that which cannot exist without the individual, and is in fact a direct and categorical product of the individual’s own mind, has some right to demand of its creator an ablution and an offering.

Obviously what is an abstraction, “the people”, or “society”, cannot possibly demand penance and property from the individual human being, and this is why the abstraction’s proxies must act in its stead.  Whenever a politician demands that this person must be robbed of his property in service to the group, or the “greater good”, know that this property cannot in fact go to any end except the whims and contrivances of those who are using their position as the monopolizers of force to “serve” on “behalf of the group”.  Remember, “group”, be it the “poor” or “disadvantaged” or “those without healthcare”, or “minorities”, or “single moms” is an abstraction, and these merely direct derivations of the primary group abstraction, “society”, or “nation”, or the “people”, or the “country” (which is why leftist politicians always conflate forced private property redistribution to the poor as of general benefit to “society”–for the “poor” is merely a sub-collective with direct roots in  the primary collective of “nation”, or “America”…there is no actual distinction in their eyes).  What is an abstraction has no need of material goods, nor can it even be in the existential position to accept any such goods, be them labor or money.  Those rulers who represent the group as its human proxies, on the other hand, can.  And they do.  As I stated in my last article, the Collective which is represented by its human proxies, the governing authorities, is already the epitome of existential perfection.  It is already the Standard of Truth and Morality by which all else is measured.  It has no need of anything…it dictates terms.  Its only requirement is that all individuals–all who utter the word “I”–be sacrificed and consumed in service to itself.  It’s inexorable need and objective is for its infinity be absolute and unchallenged.  Its human proxies–its “leaders”, “rulers”, “governors”–exist to make that happen.  They are the “authority” which “stands in its stead”.  They are the ones who absorb the life and property of the individual because, as far as you and I are concerned, there is no difference between them and the Ideal of the Nation; the People; the Society.

But the truth is that society collapses unless the individual is free to exploit it to its own ends, and this is because “society” is an abstraction–it is not human beings; and we need to be clear about this.  Society is a direct function of the individual’s mind, devised specifically in order to make it easier for he or she to realize their individual and personal and singular existence upon the earth as they see fit.  It is individuals coming together voluntarily to exchange value for value in service to individual life and well being; to ensure that each one of us manifests ourSELVES upon our world and our universe as we see fit, and of, by, and to ourselves.  Society belongs to us, we do not belong to it.  The Race, the Workers, the Nation, the Party, the Church, belong to us.  It is of us, and for us…individually; alone and unique and equally unequal.  The individual must always and only gain from his affiliation with and presence within society according to his own standards–his own ideas, his own objectives, his own goals, his own desires, his own purposes, his own schedule, and no one else’s.  Always and utterly, every minute and every second of every day, forever.  There can be NO loss for the individual, ever, to “society” in his eyes.  Because once that happens, its all over.  The minute man is compelled to lose something–to suffer a net and un-reimbursed debt–in service to “society” the metaphysics are flipped completely on their heads.  Once man is asked to give without any gain to the “group”, he has become a function of the abstraction.  What is has become what is not.  You are no longer you.  You, and all you know, are a lie.

Man is Self, and “society” is his abstraction he must use for his own individual, perpetual gain, as he desires and defines for himself.  Any other understanding or application of the idea of “society” is a rank corruption.  It is a lie, and it can do nothing and will inevitably do nothing else but erase its human progenitors from the face of the earth.