Some Broadly Relevant Parameters
The proper existence of a Good World is understood to be the foundation of all human action which operates under the pretext, or pretension, of Good Faith. All cooperative actions are conducted among interested parties with the assumed understanding that they are intended to do no harm that is unintended or unaccepted by any involved party. The purpose is, at minimum, comity sufficient for all members to the contract to be best able to pursue each their own interests, according to various explicit standards of justice in such matters, but underlying all of which is the fundamental grundnorm of all conceptions of justice, which is summed in the phrase "to each his own". Each person is the agent of his own proper person, which includes his own will, idea, and act. Anything which proceeds from his own proper person is his own property, or in short, "his own". His authority proceeds from his authorship, and all his works are on his account and to his credit according to their merits.
The fact of authorship is a fact of ownership. Therefore, authority itself is the ownership of merit in a field of action. In the matter of being a good person, merit in some special field gains only that special authority, and in competition with others who may demonstrate more or less merit. Take for example the offering of spiritual insight as a function of one's special study into spiritual matters, especially as substantiated by special sources (e.g. Holy Texts). One listens to this demonstration of railing shrilly on matters of metaphor derived from a specious tradition of heavily redacted and deformed "deep doctrine", and realizes that this imbecile's main beef is with "proud children". One needn't read too much into the matter, however. It is uttered from his own mouth that he thinks it is vain to be proud, and he assumes there's a particular god which favors his take on this matter and disdains that same pride, which has by definition no merit, because it contradicts his god. The same matter is revealed in his attitude about it, so that he thinks childishness is essentially being foolish, yet at the same time can only use a ridiculing rhetoric (sometimes self-deprecating), which makes the audience seem foolish for disagreeing with him, so they should laugh at the thought. Well, if one doesn't agree, one doesn't agree with his god, per his bible.
What of my authorship? I base my assessments of matters spiritual and "mundane" both by references to facts and reason, albeit one must have some proper sense of virtue and intelligence in order to properly understand them as I present them in my writings and videos. I don't intend for people to take me on the world of some "holy book". I expect a conscience as it comes, clean or dirty, and I take it that how I assess facts of the world to be consistent with historical and current evidence, and to be acknowledged as such by the authorities that the world itself accepts as its own. Not by arcane speculations about the depths of supposed holy books and the Leviathan's of "deep doctrine" which lurk therein. One may not agree with me, but the facts of one's own senses cannot be reasonably or safely defied. And even if they can by some temporary measures that force those contingencies upon others (for any reason or by any means), these same agents of denial cannot defy the consequences of their défi par retard.
I wish to speak more of matters of authority in particular later when institutions of authority and their state of corruption are detailed in how they affect the substantive matter of social grundnorms. But as I've already indicated sufficiently for this matter, and in a way related in complementary parallel to what I showed in my first essay of this series, the fundamental basis of social grundnorms, and hence to institutions of authority which society recognizes as such, is a quality inherent to the mind which manifests it as its agent of expression. Proper authority, institutionalized publicly or not, lies therein, and not merely by resting on the laurels of such. Now I can conceive some fanciful things as can anyone, but at least I openly think and claim to demonstrate that they are based upon facts, concerning which I have rightly reasoned, and therefore concerning a world that I have rightly assessed and judged. That's something far different from basing my assertions upon claims of having a holy spirit in communion with me or a book authored by such. I can take the world as my domain of information and make a proper, reasoned, rightful claim about its status, morally and eschatologically. I don't need to add claims about access to "holy materials". But I offer relevant remedies for those who would espouse lies about me concerning anything which I do argue on their own terms, as well as in terms of their malicious claims about my spiritual condition or allegiances, and I will show them wrong on the matter. I would show that they are handled meat, bereft of any authentic, conscientious spirit or inspiration.
As to the facts of the world, I spoke of metaphysical facts of the world, but also of physical facts. I talk about the concepts in which we must frame the world after it is given to us, in terms of the fundamental categories in which the world "gives itself". I went on at more length concerning this in other series of articles, referring to my metaphysical ideas both at length and in shorter references. And did so again here in the first two of these essays. The short version is that all of Reality Proper (the Real Reality) in its fullness and in its fundamental characters is "minds, and minds within minds". That means that all "material" contexts are the conveyances of significance between minds operating through various modes of expression, so far from being a universe where "neutral" and "inert" matter can even exist. Such cannot. All minds are agents of the value of their own existence, to include in their kinds and degrees of existence. There is a hierarchy of a certain sort in the Ultimate Reality as well, but it is a benign one, like that of a maturing family. This world's version of even that is an obscene gesture of deformity. The only question is, is it merely by comparison to some greater degree by the same standard, or is it according to a standard which is completely deviated from that Real Standard of what constitutes the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
Not only that, but what would it constitute to manifest such a grievous fault in the very being of one's world, the aggregate of all its mental agents? Would that not be form of crime? Would it not also bear a sort of essential relationship to other, more "normal" crimes? Would that relationship not perhaps have a necessarily obscured form in all possible worlds where it may exist at all? Would that relationship not be causal? Would it not be aggravating toward and sustained by the "common" forms of what are considered crimes? Would it not have a certain modus operandi? What would that be? I can answer these questions by a two-pronged reference to empirical facts and logical reasoning alone. It requires more than this to properly understand these matters, but I need not make direct reference to such in order to convey a sufficient ground for proof from the point of view of any honest philosopher, historian, ponerologist or criminologist. Sure, they have to be honest, obviously. It's not to say that I would argue their dishonesty on the mere fact of their disagreement, but I would argue that it would be inevitably shown, upon examination of their reasons, that they are being dishonest, both cognitively and ethically (which are really the same thing, though one could just say "aesthetically" in the metaphysical frame that I use).
And so I categorize the relations between the terms which refer to the same agents and the same acts in a way that bears my interpretation of them as cognate with one another, but according to a certain framework of indicating an inner logic to those relations that is itself a proper subject of study that is founded in reality and is in no way ad hoc. That is to say, I am giving what one philosopher has called a "paradigmatic analysis". The logic to which I referred he would have called a "metalogic", and rightly, because it is a logic about the logic by which one refers to reality. It understands there to be something fundamental about reality that is necessarily expressed in any logic which makes it "cognate with itself", in that as I have said, it is nothing but the semantic exchanges between minds using syntactical forms of expression. And in this context I am talking about what, in those exchanges, constitutes a criminal act of any kind, and of any degree. Of the categories that result from that exposition, I talk of their fundamental relations, and therefore employ by necessity a metalogic. I don't intend to explicate the mechanics of that metalogic, but also do not expect there to be any inconsistencies to support the need, and think that the manifest consistency of my schemes on these matters to be sufficient evidence to the honest and reasonable mind.
Standards of Assessment
My standards are the same that are taken for granted by the world in which my body exists. Sense data and associated empirical facts are taken from my senses, and common sense is a rightful ground of much of my evidence for what I claim. I accept, within reason and within the context of my understanding, any scientific theory which has been adequately supported by this same right ground. I understand how those methods are employed, and why they are substantiated by experiment and by the development of applications in method and technology, which has demonstrated a profoundly self-reinforcing structure so that new developments in technology confirm or disconfirm former theories while strengthening those they confirm. Further, they have admitted additional reach to the theoretical knowledge which is possible only through the advances they have catalyzed, whilst leading to new avenues of technological advancement which continue this same, almost vicious cycle of ever self-enhancing theoretical and practical cognition about the world.
Those facts about myself and the world in which I am operating are in stark contrast to the facts that can be similarly displayed about its moral and ethical, as well as its aesthetic condition. And as it concerns matters that bear on cognition of any associated facts and truths of the world, there is a demonstrable burden of deformity and abuse that is inflicted upon and through science and technology, art and method, and indeed of the culture and of society its author. It is more like a vast organized criminal enterprise which has somehow been granted some boost of acceleration of its capabilities which should never have been within its grasp, such that the entire debacle both has invented and required the study of evil to exist, the science of ponerology. In a recent furthering of my ongoing studies into the works of academic authorities which are relevant to my own work, I can recommend, among them, a work by Susan Neiman called "Evil in Modern Thought: An alternative history of philosophy". By the way, by her definition of terms and conditions which apply to this world, to include especially my special emphasis on how I enframe and adjudge it, I am literally never stoned, and never talking for the sake of talking. Literally, she sounds like she's describing my vocation in the world. But that's empirical evidence with a theoretical reinforcement for another occasion. I would simply like to emphasize that this is no contrived matter, as I have stated it, and is fundamental to the fabric of the world, no matter anyone would like to say contrary to Dr. Neiman on the same point, or contrary to me in what I have to say about it.
For that I am saying nothing openly that is very arcane or even a far cry from what people at least pretend to understand about the world outside of my supposed ramblings. They simply tend to have, as Dr. Neiman often savors emphatically pointing out, an obsessive response with regard to these matters about which they would wish rather to be wrong, or about which they pretend some optimistic understanding which is at odds with what their more honest inspection would probably reveal, on the balance of available evidence, the balance of evidence to which I refer. My instinct on the matter is that Dr. Neiman would prefer not to directly address the worst possible case of the matter, even in worlds where it happened to be the case, demonstrating in her own living person a special instances of her own seminal idea, which is that humankind's way of discussing the evils and "other tragedies" of the world is one which suggests that it would rather not admit the truth of it. Certainly, in her terms, I must seem like a modern Pierre Bayle in my overall take on things as to the scope of human thinking in certain matters of substance, but I think he did not fathom the sort of "corrosive powder" which must correct for an error in thinking of the size with which I am dealing, though he should have, smart as he was supposed to be. Theodicially, I think that I go a step beyond both he and Leibniz, as I exceed the bare bones skepticism of the latter, and I also despoil the unwarranted and flabby optimism of the latter. Philosophy in my hands does no harm to the Body of Truth, but reveals instead that the world is in much need of something more drastic than a cosmetic makeover. It isn't just "ugly underneath", but it is criminally ugly, especially in the aspects it goes through much toil to present to me in particular. More on that below.
While I endeavor no scholarly effort here in the format of my presentation, and honestly don't even know whether my presentation is going beyond a subverted node on the "world wide web" (what a laugh), I certainly do extend in a specific and relevant way the valid skepticism of Bayle with regard to the philosophy's relevant utility to the correction of human errors of thought, to the point that I have found that the most efficient method of doing so is to uncover the opposite of whatever is supposed to be the case as far as humankind sees it. Except where we happen to agree, of course. I also include in the package a certain willingness to entertain the metaphysics I hold as true, as well as a decent intuition on rather uncomplicated uses of quantified modal logic with certain deontological inflections. No matter what anyone says, I can argue that my reference to the empirical facts are within the realm of what is arguable by someone with a sane grasp of his own senses and at least a decent familiarity with various relevant facts of history. It only takes a certain amount of common sense to admit the truth as I refer to its empirical aspects. As to the logical aspects, I try to make the arguments as explicit and as simple as I can, and I think it would be a far cry to say that I am not reasoning accurately and well. At least one would have to give some better reasoning to show this, and no one has. And my notes and private studies get a lot more complicated and arcane than anything I offer to the inspection of the subverted world wide web.
Let's just say that I can suss out some things, and I can go on very little and reliably and validly get quite a lot. That's what ends up happening once one has done something long enough, with as much intense, disciplined, loyal and truly motivated effort, in short with as much sincerity and integrity as I have. One gets to the point where certain facades start to fall away, and certain charades begin to wear quite thin. Indeed, the follies of many a betrayal have yielded the scars of wisdom. I tend to agree with Dr. Neiman's sentiment in even my own case, as I find that the truth with which I am faced has a scope and depth of evil inherent to it that could be enjoyed by only the most perverse sort of mind, and sought only in a form which is all the less pleasant as it is all the more found to be the true methodology of discovering that truth as a subset of all Truth. That means that in such cases the truth of the world is that it is not only plagued with a difficult and evil aspect, but that it is, at its very core, evil. If I wanted to be happy, why would I entertain such an idea? But my first goal was to be happy, in my vocation as a philosopher, through my investigation into the "Mystery of the World". But my proper findings would not make anyone happy except at the sight of a chopping block of sufficient size on which to place such an evil place.
I wish that only strange and picayune anecdotes were all that I had to justify my judgement and my ways and means of reaching it. But there is need simply to hand the microphone to the star of the show, the criminal world.
Hoc Mundi Criminalibus
All the world's a stage, and the play, a tragic one. Indeed, I will go on to show that what here "passes" for a world is an ongoing murder-suicide of epic proportions, even "meta" proportions. I must report that I will not go much into the picayune details of the anecdotal evidence, which in my case necessarily abounds because of my office, because one can find much more objectively available evidence by looking onto the contemporary world and its history, especially in the annals of its own confessions on the matter of authority, corruption, and society's role in the crime implied. But it takes not deep investigation into the history of crime to know what a crime is. Most people in a society that has mores and norms, if not all people in it know what that is and claim, most with hypocrisy, to abhor such. At least everyone abhors when a crime is committed against them, but that is just the other, more general and objective side of the matter of the anecdotes which I will, for the most part, omit. Some of them will be handy as examples and can be taken as arbitrary constructions if one likes, but I can assure the honest man that in my case, they are not arbitrary, but are based on the real facts of my own experience, as understood by a mind that would rather not believe them, but would rather not deny the Truth, to which I have a clearly greater duty than to my preferred bonis mundi.
Let us say that all crime can be understood as simply and essentially the existence of an evil will. It is required by our system of law in the west that a crime is not committed, not one that has a victim anyway, unless there is "malice and forethought" or as some say "malice aforethought". Which by the way, reminds me through a mere coincidence of a sort of anecdote which looks humorous when detached from its real-world reference in genuine (not "staged") cases. It looks a lot like this in essence:
Yes, well. Whatever one may say about it, it looks a lot like this when it happens, at least in spirit. One can say a lot from the image alone, but a sequence of images go exponentially further than a thousand pages. And let me say this, it looks a lot like what has often found itself happening in my presence, and by no dint of hallucination. I've caught people doing this in real life, and I have to say that when this is going on, "somebody's got a problem", and a very serious one, and it isn't the same one I have, though they do aim to be some part of it. So rather than go into the detail of such displays of the primitive and asinine which is redolent of the tactics of my enemies (who are so by their acts and private, secret declarations), I trust that sparing use of them as examples sufficient to illustrate some more general point will not deter the reasonable mind from missing the more general point. The more general point, understood correctly, will not only cover even the most specious and bizarre cases, but also the normal ones and even the hardest ones. So with that indulgence allowed, it is with pleasure that I proceed.
Malice aforethought does not express any particular act per se, but if there is any act which is to proceed as an adequate outlet for that malice, or which cannot dispense with it, it must be because some deliberation of the consequences had taken place. Hence, aforethought. The malice may be in the simple substance of the being, that he is evil, and I have allowed for that in my philosophical system, as a derived fact from the principle of antivalent opposition of irreconcilable wills on the primary plane of reality, the morally meaningful one. So therefore, what is there to say of any crime worthy of the name but that someone held a malicious will against what is right? That is to say that someone simply had the will to do what is wrong. What is wrong is simply what ever is injurious to what is Just. What is just is "to each, his own". What is each one's own, if not each one's own coherent grasp of his own senses, and their valid connection to the facts of reality? So therefore what stands out immediately about the evil will is that it needn't even ever express in any form, neither from nor to eternity, and it will still be a crime of every kind that one can conceive. It is, also, at the root of every crime that could ever be committed. The reason for these two complementary truths is consistent with my already-proposed metaphysical framework, but can be discussed independently of that discourse to a great extent.
The reason has to do with the existence of a fundamental fact of reality which is relevant to understanding anything at all, and that because nothing which can be discussed at all which is not beholden to this truth as an underlying assumption. This is that there is no phenomenal form which does not express some antecedent agental author. All of the former are called "effects", and all of the latter are called their "causes". They are complementary to one a other and neither can exist without the other as such. Other things may be contingent, such as what causes are leading to what effects at any particular part of any particular world, but what will never be contingent and always necessarily the case is that there is a cause leading to an effect. While I may not care to explicate this axiom in the way that other philosophers have, I don't disagree with the substantive claims of their accounts of causality where they consider that our understanding of the world does not have a frame of reference which can sensibly and rationally extend outside of it. And I see no good reason to consider that to be any sort of arbitrary limit on human or any other epistemology, nor any sort of finitude expressing of a deficiency. It's the way Reality is.
And fortunately, too. And while I may argue that this is one of the worst possible worlds that can possibly exist (quite the contrary to Leibniz), I can also by this same approach develop a way to ameliorate even such a vile fact by demonstrating that the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" cannot be disabled within it (although reasoning capacities of species and specimens can be disabled), and that at the very least one can learn to understand the reasons for the way that the worst possible world can exist and also, minimally just by doing this, escape it. For what is worse is to be in the worst possible world and be fundamentally disabled from understanding the fact. And that alone is already "doing something about it". That is more than can be said for most people in this version of the worst possible world, at least according to the way that most people glorify the "hear not evil, see no evil, speak no evil" creed. That should be to say "speak of" no evil, but there again we have a symptom of the world's condition as shown through its own customary "leaking" through its own cultural facades. Certainly Freud had it right when he understood that certain social conventions, to include gestures and idioms, are expressions of a "compromise formation" between what the ego can face and admit and what it can't, whether to itself or others. Certainly, the incoherent aspect of that phrase is that it either means to be unwilling to face evil, or unwilling to commit evil, but that the phrase is ambiguous and can suggest either. It either means to avoid unjust projecting of evil interpretations upon what one sees and hears (let alone of uttering them), or it means to fail to face the fact of such, too turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, and to keep one's cowardly and complicit mouth shut. Unless that is, one is engaged in evil muttering behind someone's back, literal or metaphoric.
Regardless of one's views on any nascent meanings of the turn of phrase, the two interpretations require as their cause a different understanding of the intent, and these two different intents can and do overlap, unfortunately. The very fact of human hypocrisy and of hypocrisy "as such" depends upon this overlap. Indeed, evil could not manifest in the world at all without it. It manifests even in its most latent form, as a pure and evil will, because there exists at least one being in the universe which can invert substance and appearance, and this is to the risk of all other beings in that universe. What worse can be said is only a matter of degree and scope. Surely the worst possible world is the one where all but one being is this way, and only one being alone is tasked with the inauspicious challenge of uncovering such a horrid truth about his world. Whether he succeeds or fails, his world becomes even worse, though if he succeeds it becomes better in a substantive way that offers a unique hope to him alone. In that case, the world may be a great and heinous suicide, and may even assassinate him, but he alone is innocent. The pleasure which accords with his understanding of such an unfortunate truth will have to await his admission into a proper setting for its enjoyment. That is a matter of Justice pertaining to restitution against the world, not the restoration of it. Restoration is for only the innocent.
I make no apologies for the strange way that a scintillation of the comedic necessarily gilds the most tragic of prisons.
 | |||
| "All I need is my smart phone for with which to fifth you safe and sound, Mundi omnicriminalibus columnis quintus maximus" |
No comments:
Post a Comment